| Title | Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 5-28 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gregory, Andrew |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
| Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus’ theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus’ astronomy, and of Eudoxus’ astronomy, whereby Eudoxus’ work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus’ work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus’ model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zuozQiu69DMzr3V |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"658","_score":null,"_source":{"id":658,"authors_free":[{"id":948,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":949,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":950,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus","main_title":{"title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus"},"abstract":"Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus\u2019 theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus\u2019 astronomy, and of Eudoxus\u2019 astronomy, whereby Eudoxus\u2019 work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus\u2019 work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus\u2019 model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zuozQiu69DMzr3V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":658,"section_of":157,"pages":"5-28","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus’ Receptacle |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 29-47 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gregory, Andrew |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
| The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized. Some commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call "atoms" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle. What is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting "live" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant "dead" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate. There is an important consideration about Aristotle’s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well. Firstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"702","_score":null,"_source":{"id":702,"authors_free":[{"id":1043,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1044,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1045,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle"},"abstract":"The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized.\r\n\r\nSome commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call \"atoms\" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle.\r\n\r\nWhat is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting \"live\" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant \"dead\" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate.\r\n\r\nThere is an important consideration about Aristotle\u2019s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well.\r\n\r\nFirstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":702,"section_of":157,"pages":"29-47","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 49-71 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
| We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato’s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus. My perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the "commentary tradition." Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions—e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is—would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as "what is a commentary?", "what form did the interpretation of texts take?", or "when do commentaries emerge?") require a fresh look. The "prehistory" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century "commentary," Edward Hussey already points out that "DP’s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making." The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus—as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective. The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus’ work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, "reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus’ works were so closely associated with Aristotle’s that his works became mixed up with his master’s. In late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters. Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity. I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the "pre-history" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rECjmb8p0bsRQza |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"971","_score":null,"_source":{"id":971,"authors_free":[{"id":1462,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2351,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2352,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus","main_title":{"title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"},"abstract":"We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\n\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \"commentary tradition.\" Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions\u2014e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is\u2014would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \"what is a commentary?\", \"what form did the interpretation of texts take?\", or \"when do commentaries emerge?\") require a fresh look.\r\n\r\nThe \"prehistory\" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century \"commentary,\" Edward Hussey already points out that \"DP\u2019s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making.\"\r\n\r\nThe two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus\u2014as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective.\r\n\r\nThe ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus\u2019 work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, \"reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day\"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus\u2019 works were so closely associated with Aristotle\u2019s that his works became mixed up with his master\u2019s.\r\n\r\nIn late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\r\n\r\nSome twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity.\r\n\r\nI should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the \"pre-history\" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rECjmb8p0bsRQza","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":971,"section_of":157,"pages":"49-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Publication Place | University of London |
| Publisher | Institute of Classical Studies |
| Series | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies |
| Volume | 46, Supplement 78 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
| Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UsvEmjeEeL17itA |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"157","_score":null,"_source":{"id":157,"authors_free":[{"id":1851,"entry_id":157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1852,"entry_id":157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Sheppard","free_last_name":"Anne D.","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus"},"abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Épictète, Tome I |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2002 |
| Journal | The Classical Review, New Series |
| Volume | 52 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 377-378 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In 1996, Ilsetraut Hadot published the first-ever full critical edition of the Greek text of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Encheiridion (I. Hadot, Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Epictète [Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 1996]). The volume reviewed here is the first half of an editio minor of that text. It also contains a largely new introduction, written for a more general audience than the detailed scholarly introduction of the editio maior, and a translation equipped with notes. These notes follow the format of recent Budé editions of Neoplatonic texts, offering much helpful explanation with useful references to parallel passages in other Neoplatonic authors but inconveniently divided between the bottom of the page and the end of the volume. All Neoplatonic commentaries are discursive, and those of Simplicius are among the most discursive. It takes 130 pages of this volume for Simplicius to reach Chapter 20 of Epictetus' short work. However, as with many Neoplatonic commentaries, the interest of this one does not lie in what it tells us about Epictetus—whose philosophy Simplicius misunderstood in some important respects, as Hadot points out in her introduction (pp. ci–cxvii). Rather, it is worth reading for what it tells us about Simplicius' own philosophical views. It is unusual among Neoplatonic commentaries in dealing with an ethical text, and the discussions of τὰ Ἐφ' ἡμῖν (what is within our power) and the spiritual exercises recommended by Epictetus are of considerable interest. Hadot's introduction offers an updated version of her views on Simplicius' life, work, and philosophical system; a chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching; an account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines; and a short history of the text. Finally, there is an appendix on Fate, Providence, and human freedom in Neoplatonism, which covers Porphyry, Iamblichus, Hierocles, and Proclus, as well as Simplicius. Of these, the account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines and the appendix are entirely new, while the chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching is an updated and lightly revised version of a chapter from her book, Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin. Hiéroclès et Simplicius (Paris, 1978). The first two chapters of the introduction repeat, in a clear and accessible form, views she has already published elsewhere and is well known for. She reiterates her now largely accepted demonstration that Simplicius' philosophical system is essentially the same as that of Damascius—not, as Praechter thought, a simplified Alexandrian system—and, more controversially, continues to maintain, with Tardieu, that his commentaries were written in Harran after 532. The chapter on the history of the text abbreviates the longer account in the editio maior and explains the principles of the editio minor, acknowledging the help of Concetta Luna in simplifying the apparatus. A small number of readings that differ from those of the editio maior are indicated in a footnote on p. cxxvi. Hadot's translation is divided into sections with helpful headings and subheadings, and, together with her full notes, provides a great deal of assistance in understanding Simplicius' text. This volume deserves a warm welcome as a further installment in the enormous contribution Hadot has made to the understanding of Simplicius over many years. It is to be hoped that it will not be too long before the second volume appears to complement it. [the entire review] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lwxAqvhdfMDm8ss |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1020","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1020,"authors_free":[{"id":1536,"entry_id":1020,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, Tome I","main_title":{"title":"Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, Tome I"},"abstract":"In 1996, Ilsetraut Hadot published the first-ever full critical edition of the Greek text of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Encheiridion (I. Hadot, Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te [Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 1996]). The volume reviewed here is the first half of an editio minor of that text. It also contains a largely new introduction, written for a more general audience than the detailed scholarly introduction of the editio maior, and a translation equipped with notes. These notes follow the format of recent Bud\u00e9 editions of Neoplatonic texts, offering much helpful explanation with useful references to parallel passages in other Neoplatonic authors but inconveniently divided between the bottom of the page and the end of the volume.\r\n\r\nAll Neoplatonic commentaries are discursive, and those of Simplicius are among the most discursive. It takes 130 pages of this volume for Simplicius to reach Chapter 20 of Epictetus' short work. However, as with many Neoplatonic commentaries, the interest of this one does not lie in what it tells us about Epictetus\u2014whose philosophy Simplicius misunderstood in some important respects, as Hadot points out in her introduction (pp. ci\u2013cxvii). Rather, it is worth reading for what it tells us about Simplicius' own philosophical views. It is unusual among Neoplatonic commentaries in dealing with an ethical text, and the discussions of \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f18\u03c6' \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd (what is within our power) and the spiritual exercises recommended by Epictetus are of considerable interest.\r\n\r\nHadot's introduction offers an updated version of her views on Simplicius' life, work, and philosophical system; a chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching; an account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines; and a short history of the text. Finally, there is an appendix on Fate, Providence, and human freedom in Neoplatonism, which covers Porphyry, Iamblichus, Hierocles, and Proclus, as well as Simplicius. Of these, the account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines and the appendix are entirely new, while the chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching is an updated and lightly revised version of a chapter from her book, Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin. Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius (Paris, 1978).\r\n\r\nThe first two chapters of the introduction repeat, in a clear and accessible form, views she has already published elsewhere and is well known for. She reiterates her now largely accepted demonstration that Simplicius' philosophical system is essentially the same as that of Damascius\u2014not, as Praechter thought, a simplified Alexandrian system\u2014and, more controversially, continues to maintain, with Tardieu, that his commentaries were written in Harran after 532. The chapter on the history of the text abbreviates the longer account in the editio maior and explains the principles of the editio minor, acknowledging the help of Concetta Luna in simplifying the apparatus. A small number of readings that differ from those of the editio maior are indicated in a footnote on p. cxxvi.\r\n\r\nHadot's translation is divided into sections with helpful headings and subheadings, and, together with her full notes, provides a great deal of assistance in understanding Simplicius' text. This volume deserves a warm welcome as a further installment in the enormous contribution Hadot has made to the understanding of Simplicius over many years. It is to be hoped that it will not be too long before the second volume appears to complement it. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lwxAqvhdfMDm8ss","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1020,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review, New Series","volume":"52","issue":"2","pages":"377-378"}},"sort":[2002]}
| Title | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Publication Place | University of London |
| Publisher | Institute of Classical Studies |
| Series | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies |
| Volume | 46, Supplement 78 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UsvEmjeEeL17itA |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"157","_score":null,"_source":{"id":157,"authors_free":[{"id":1851,"entry_id":157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1852,"entry_id":157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Sheppard","free_last_name":"Anne D.","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus"},"abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus"]}
| Title | Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus’ Receptacle |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 29-47 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gregory, Andrew |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized. Some commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call "atoms" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle. What is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting "live" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant "dead" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate. There is an important consideration about Aristotle’s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well. Firstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"702","_score":null,"_source":{"id":702,"authors_free":[{"id":1043,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1044,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1045,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle"},"abstract":"The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized.\r\n\r\nSome commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call \"atoms\" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle.\r\n\r\nWhat is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting \"live\" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant \"dead\" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate.\r\n\r\nThere is an important consideration about Aristotle\u2019s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well.\r\n\r\nFirstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":702,"section_of":157,"pages":"29-47","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle"]}
| Title | Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 49-71 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato’s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus. My perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the "commentary tradition." Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions—e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is—would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as "what is a commentary?", "what form did the interpretation of texts take?", or "when do commentaries emerge?") require a fresh look. The "prehistory" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century "commentary," Edward Hussey already points out that "DP’s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making." The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus—as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective. The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus’ work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, "reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus’ works were so closely associated with Aristotle’s that his works became mixed up with his master’s. In late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters. Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity. I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the "pre-history" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rECjmb8p0bsRQza |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"971","_score":null,"_source":{"id":971,"authors_free":[{"id":1462,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2351,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2352,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus","main_title":{"title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"},"abstract":"We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\n\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \"commentary tradition.\" Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions\u2014e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is\u2014would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \"what is a commentary?\", \"what form did the interpretation of texts take?\", or \"when do commentaries emerge?\") require a fresh look.\r\n\r\nThe \"prehistory\" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century \"commentary,\" Edward Hussey already points out that \"DP\u2019s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making.\"\r\n\r\nThe two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus\u2014as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective.\r\n\r\nThe ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus\u2019 work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, \"reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day\"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus\u2019 works were so closely associated with Aristotle\u2019s that his works became mixed up with his master\u2019s.\r\n\r\nIn late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\r\n\r\nSome twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity.\r\n\r\nI should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the \"pre-history\" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rECjmb8p0bsRQza","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":971,"section_of":157,"pages":"49-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"]}
| Title | Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 5-28 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gregory, Andrew |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus’ theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus’ astronomy, and of Eudoxus’ astronomy, whereby Eudoxus’ work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus’ work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus’ model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zuozQiu69DMzr3V |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"658","_score":null,"_source":{"id":658,"authors_free":[{"id":948,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":949,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":950,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus","main_title":{"title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus"},"abstract":"Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus\u2019 theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus\u2019 astronomy, and of Eudoxus\u2019 astronomy, whereby Eudoxus\u2019 work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus\u2019 work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus\u2019 model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zuozQiu69DMzr3V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":658,"section_of":157,"pages":"5-28","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus"]}
| Title | Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Épictète, Tome I |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2002 |
| Journal | The Classical Review, New Series |
| Volume | 52 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 377-378 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In 1996, Ilsetraut Hadot published the first-ever full critical edition of the Greek text of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Encheiridion (I. Hadot, Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Epictète [Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 1996]). The volume reviewed here is the first half of an editio minor of that text. It also contains a largely new introduction, written for a more general audience than the detailed scholarly introduction of the editio maior, and a translation equipped with notes. These notes follow the format of recent Budé editions of Neoplatonic texts, offering much helpful explanation with useful references to parallel passages in other Neoplatonic authors but inconveniently divided between the bottom of the page and the end of the volume. All Neoplatonic commentaries are discursive, and those of Simplicius are among the most discursive. It takes 130 pages of this volume for Simplicius to reach Chapter 20 of Epictetus' short work. However, as with many Neoplatonic commentaries, the interest of this one does not lie in what it tells us about Epictetus—whose philosophy Simplicius misunderstood in some important respects, as Hadot points out in her introduction (pp. ci–cxvii). Rather, it is worth reading for what it tells us about Simplicius' own philosophical views. It is unusual among Neoplatonic commentaries in dealing with an ethical text, and the discussions of τὰ Ἐφ' ἡμῖν (what is within our power) and the spiritual exercises recommended by Epictetus are of considerable interest. Hadot's introduction offers an updated version of her views on Simplicius' life, work, and philosophical system; a chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching; an account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines; and a short history of the text. Finally, there is an appendix on Fate, Providence, and human freedom in Neoplatonism, which covers Porphyry, Iamblichus, Hierocles, and Proclus, as well as Simplicius. Of these, the account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines and the appendix are entirely new, while the chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching is an updated and lightly revised version of a chapter from her book, Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin. Hiéroclès et Simplicius (Paris, 1978). The first two chapters of the introduction repeat, in a clear and accessible form, views she has already published elsewhere and is well known for. She reiterates her now largely accepted demonstration that Simplicius' philosophical system is essentially the same as that of Damascius—not, as Praechter thought, a simplified Alexandrian system—and, more controversially, continues to maintain, with Tardieu, that his commentaries were written in Harran after 532. The chapter on the history of the text abbreviates the longer account in the editio maior and explains the principles of the editio minor, acknowledging the help of Concetta Luna in simplifying the apparatus. A small number of readings that differ from those of the editio maior are indicated in a footnote on p. cxxvi. Hadot's translation is divided into sections with helpful headings and subheadings, and, together with her full notes, provides a great deal of assistance in understanding Simplicius' text. This volume deserves a warm welcome as a further installment in the enormous contribution Hadot has made to the understanding of Simplicius over many years. It is to be hoped that it will not be too long before the second volume appears to complement it. [the entire review] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lwxAqvhdfMDm8ss |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1020","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1020,"authors_free":[{"id":1536,"entry_id":1020,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, Tome I","main_title":{"title":"Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, Tome I"},"abstract":"In 1996, Ilsetraut Hadot published the first-ever full critical edition of the Greek text of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Encheiridion (I. Hadot, Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te [Leiden, New York, and Cologne, 1996]). The volume reviewed here is the first half of an editio minor of that text. It also contains a largely new introduction, written for a more general audience than the detailed scholarly introduction of the editio maior, and a translation equipped with notes. These notes follow the format of recent Bud\u00e9 editions of Neoplatonic texts, offering much helpful explanation with useful references to parallel passages in other Neoplatonic authors but inconveniently divided between the bottom of the page and the end of the volume.\r\n\r\nAll Neoplatonic commentaries are discursive, and those of Simplicius are among the most discursive. It takes 130 pages of this volume for Simplicius to reach Chapter 20 of Epictetus' short work. However, as with many Neoplatonic commentaries, the interest of this one does not lie in what it tells us about Epictetus\u2014whose philosophy Simplicius misunderstood in some important respects, as Hadot points out in her introduction (pp. ci\u2013cxvii). Rather, it is worth reading for what it tells us about Simplicius' own philosophical views. It is unusual among Neoplatonic commentaries in dealing with an ethical text, and the discussions of \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f18\u03c6' \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd (what is within our power) and the spiritual exercises recommended by Epictetus are of considerable interest.\r\n\r\nHadot's introduction offers an updated version of her views on Simplicius' life, work, and philosophical system; a chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching; an account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines; and a short history of the text. Finally, there is an appendix on Fate, Providence, and human freedom in Neoplatonism, which covers Porphyry, Iamblichus, Hierocles, and Proclus, as well as Simplicius. Of these, the account of Simplicius' reception of Stoic doctrines and the appendix are entirely new, while the chapter on the Commentary's place in Neoplatonic teaching is an updated and lightly revised version of a chapter from her book, Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin. Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius (Paris, 1978).\r\n\r\nThe first two chapters of the introduction repeat, in a clear and accessible form, views she has already published elsewhere and is well known for. She reiterates her now largely accepted demonstration that Simplicius' philosophical system is essentially the same as that of Damascius\u2014not, as Praechter thought, a simplified Alexandrian system\u2014and, more controversially, continues to maintain, with Tardieu, that his commentaries were written in Harran after 532. The chapter on the history of the text abbreviates the longer account in the editio maior and explains the principles of the editio minor, acknowledging the help of Concetta Luna in simplifying the apparatus. A small number of readings that differ from those of the editio maior are indicated in a footnote on p. cxxvi.\r\n\r\nHadot's translation is divided into sections with helpful headings and subheadings, and, together with her full notes, provides a great deal of assistance in understanding Simplicius' text. This volume deserves a warm welcome as a further installment in the enormous contribution Hadot has made to the understanding of Simplicius over many years. It is to be hoped that it will not be too long before the second volume appears to complement it. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lwxAqvhdfMDm8ss","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1020,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review, New Series","volume":"52","issue":"2","pages":"377-378"}},"sort":["Review of Hadot, I.: Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, Tome I"]}