{"_index":"sire","_id":"1061","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1061,"authors_free":[{"id":1610,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1611,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion","main_title":{"title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"},"abstract":"A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus\u2019 criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: \"and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)\". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus\u2019 theory, either directly or through Aristotle\u2019s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice.\r\n\r\nTo conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\n The \u2018Aristotelian\u2019 claim of the intellect from without.\r\n Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move.\r\n Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity.\r\n Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles\u2019 solution to Atticus\u2019 criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes.\r\n Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus\u2019 vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution.\r\n\r\nThus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/roAfpopRonK2aKn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1061,"section_of":199,"pages":"181-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8uyail9ZCl9wfr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1531","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1531,"authors_free":[{"id":2667,"entry_id":1531,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2668,"entry_id":1531,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dating of Philoponus\u2019 Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius","main_title":{"title":"Dating of Philoponus\u2019 Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius"},"abstract":"There have been two major hypotheses since 1990, and much valuable discussion concerning the dating of Philoponus\u2019 commentaries on Aristotle and of his divergence from Ammonius. In 1990, Koenraad Verrycken summarized in Aristotle Transformed his new datings for Philoponus\u2019 work, drawing on apparent contradictions in his statements about the eternity or coming-into-being of the universe and its contents, about the nature of place, and about the possibility of vacuum and of motion in a vacuum. His earlier dissertation of 1985 also included Philoponus\u2019 changing treatment of Aristotle\u2019s prime matter. He suggested solving these problems by postulating a phase around 517 CE in which Philoponus accepted his teacher Ammonius\u2019 Neoplatonism and interpretation of Aristotle as agreeing with Plato and with Neoplatonism, and a later phase in which he reverted to his Christian origins on the level of doctrine and repudiated the Neoplatonist and Aristotelian ideas, especially where, as with eternity or the Creation of the universe, they contradicted Christian ideas. This called for a second edition of some earlier commentaries on Aristotle after 529 CE. Verrycken was aware that his particular dating might not be accepted, and even that the appearance of a Neoplatonist or Aristotelian view might sometimes be due to the expository nature of commentary on Aristotle. This and other explanations have since been proffered, and the particular dating has received widespread criticism, which I have summarized elsewhere. Nonetheless, even if Philoponus does not juxtapose as often as suggested different viewpoints of his own, Verrycken\u2019s citations establish that he does develop different viewpoints across a wide range of texts and topics, so that it remains necessary to consider his evidence in formulating any alternative dating.\r\n\r\nThe second major hypothesis was offered in 2008 by Pantelis Golitsis, who exploited an underused source of evidence that bears on several questions. He has also been kind enough to discuss at two workshops his further work in preparation. I shall, however, refer to his 2008 publication, except where explicitly stated. Philoponus\u2019 seven commentaries on Aristotle are divided into books, and four commentaries are, or at least some books in four commentaries are, described in their titles as being Philoponus\u2019 commentarial (skholastikai) notes (apos\u00eamei\u00f4seis) from the meetings (sunousiai), i.e., seminar sessions, of Ammonius (his teacher), with Philoponus\u2019 name or other designation coming first. The four are in An. Pr., in An. Post., in DA, and in GC. The last three of these four are described as containing further (critical) reflections (more below on the meaning of epistaseis) of his own (idi\u00f4n) by Philoponus. The remaining three of Philoponus\u2019 commentaries on Aristotle are not ascribed to the seminars of Ammonius. Philoponus also refers twice to a commentary, now lost, on Porphyry\u2019s Introduction (Isag\u00f4g\u00ea), his introduction that is, on one interpretation, to Aristotle\u2019s logic. All this could have several important implications.\r\n\r\nFirst, although the titles of his commentaries were written in by successive scribes, Golitsis has sought out the best manuscripts and has taken them to represent Philoponus\u2019 own description, and from this he has inferred quite a precise timetable for Philoponus\u2019 commentaries on Aristotle. The commentaries whose book titles refer to Ammonius\u2019 seminars were written first and commissioned as editions of Ammonius\u2019 lectures as they were delivered in the order of the standard curriculum between 510 and 515. Philoponus\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, which contains a lecture dated to 517, is not connected in its book titles with Ammonius\u2019 lectures in the modern edition of Vitelli under the general editorship of Diels, and moreover, it contains open disagreement with Ammonius. If that is right, the commentary will reflect courses that Philoponus himself was giving.\r\n\r\nHowever, Golitsis allows me to mention that in further work, he will now be taking seriously Trincavelli\u2019s earlier alternative reading of the manuscript title, which does, at the beginning of the commentary on Physics Book One, mention both Ammonius\u2019 seminars and Philoponus\u2019 (critical) reflections, and he will be explaining the transformative consequences. Philoponus\u2019 editions of Ammonius\u2019 lectures will have included, again, Golitsis suggests, in the order of the standard curriculum: on Porphyry\u2019s Isag\u00f4g\u00ea, and on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, then on the eighth book of his Physics, which precedes the lecture of 517 on the Physics, whether or not the series includes more on the Physics.\r\n\r\nSo far, Golitsis\u2019 conclusion rightly observes the standard view that most commentaries on Aristotle reflect teaching classes. But, by way of exception, the commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Meteorology is not connected by any titles to Ammonius, and Golitsis argues it does not appear to reflect teaching either, so was written after Philoponus had stopped teaching courses on Aristotle. The task now, as I see it, is to consider how far the new considerations about titles, combined with many others, including some highlighted by Verrycken, can enable us to confirm or disconfirm the details of dating and divergence and provide a modified picture. [introduction p. 367-369]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6Gmj6C363y2Apg8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1531,"section_of":1419,"pages":"367-392","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Dating of Philoponus\u2019 Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"489","_score":null,"_source":{"id":489,"authors_free":[{"id":669,"entry_id":489,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":670,"entry_id":489,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Infinity and the Creation","main_title":{"title":"Infinity and the Creation"},"abstract":"The arguments of Philoponus on which I want to focus concern the Christian view that the universe had a beginning. But here already I must draw a distinction. For in talking of the universe beginning, I am not talking merely of the present orderly arrangement of the earth, sun, moon, and stars. Many pagans would have accepted that the present arrangement of matter had a beginning. What, with very few exceptions, they all thought absurd was that matter itself should have had a beginning.\r\n\r\nIndeed, Jews and Christians themselves were embarrassed about this doctrine and were by no means unanimous in accepting it. It has been suggested that the oldest references to creation in the Old Testament come in Job, and that there God is envisaged as imposing order on pre-existing matter, not as creating matter itself. It has further been doubted whether there is any clear statement in the Bible of creation out of nothing. The opinion of Philo the Jew, in the first century A.D., is a matter of controversy, but I believe that he takes different sides in different works.\r\n\r\nA little later, Hermogenes and others offered a surprising reason for denying matter a beginning. They pointed to the use of the word \"was\" in the opening of Genesis, where it is said that the earth was without form and void, and they took the use of the past tense to show that earth, or matter, was already in existence when the Creator began work. It is often held, although I am not inclined to agree myself, that Boethius endorsed the Neoplatonist view of a beginningless universe at the end of his Consolation of Philosophy.\r\n\r\nWhat I would acknowledge is that other Christians in these centuries, such as Synesius and Elias, did deny the universe a beginning or end under the influence of Platonism. If we skip to the thirteenth century, we find Thomas Aquinas and his teacher Albert the Great saying that it cannot be established by philosophy one way or the other whether the universe had a beginning. It is only Scripture which reveals that it did.\r\n\r\nTwo slightly younger contemporaries in Paris went a step further\u2014indeed, a step too far. Boethius of Dacia (the Dane, not the sixth-century Roman) and Siger of Brabant maintained that philosophical argument showed the universe to be beginningless, but that nonetheless, reason must bow to revelation. They had to flee Paris in the condemnation of 1277, and there is a tradition that Siger was murdered. [introduction p. 165-167]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RDC5FI7QaO4jMjf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":489,"section_of":1383,"pages":"164-178","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Infinity and the Creation"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"488","_score":null,"_source":{"id":488,"authors_free":[{"id":667,"entry_id":488,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":668,"entry_id":488,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus"},"abstract":"This chapter delves into the life and intellectual contributions of John Philoponus, a pivotal figure bridging Neoplatonism and Christianity. It explores his relationship with Ammonius and examines how his Christian faith influenced his philosophical and scientific endeavors. The text covers Philoponus' critique of the Aristotelian worldview, focusing on key topics such as the creation of the universe, the impetus theory of dynamics, and the concept of velocity in a vacuum. It also addresses his innovative ideas about vacuum and space, his challenges to Aristotle's notions of natural place, and his interpretation of matter as extension.\r\n\r\nPhiloponus is recognized for disrupting Aristotle's categorical framework, rejecting the fifth element, and presenting novel theories about the directionality of light. The chapter reflects on his attacks on Aristotle in retrospect, highlighting the interplay between his scientific theories and Christian doctrines, including Christ, the Trinity, resurrection, and the soul. Additionally, the chapter examines his influence on later thought, tracing his intellectual antecedents and the chronology of his writings. [Derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FDyWUVJUOYpvtvb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":488,"section_of":1383,"pages":"1-40","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["John Philoponus"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1528","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1528,"authors_free":[{"id":2661,"entry_id":1528,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"de Haas","norm_person":null},{"id":2662,"entry_id":1528,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality","main_title":{"title":"Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality"},"abstract":"In this study, I have tried to show that Philoponus\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s account of mixture has to be understood against the background of a discussion between three views of mixture that dominated the Aristotelian tradition as a whole. The starting point was Zabarella\u2019s classification of solutions to the main problem of mixture: how to interpret Aristotle\u2019s claim that the ingredients are preserved in the mixture in potentiality. In a sense, Proclus and Simplicius belong with Avicenna because they accept the preservation of the elements in actuality, along with reduced actuality and interaction in the realm of qualities. However, since they reject Aristotelian mixture and discuss the problem in terms of body vs. qualities rather than forms vs. qualities, they are best regarded as belonging to a different school altogether. Alexander is probably the main source of the influential account of Averroes. Philoponus belongs with the fourth group due to his criticism of Aristotle (or rather Alexander). He accepts the corruption of the ingredients while only their qualities are preserved in reduced actuality. It remains to be seen whether his influence on the medieval authors that subscribe to a similar view can be established.\r\n\r\nZabarella\u2019s reports on his sources should be handled with care. His summaries of Alexander are inadequate, his understanding of Philoponus is wrong. He himself claims that his \u2018true\u2019 interpretation of Averroes was not followed by any Averroist (see e.g. 465A, 466B), which should give us pause as well. Moreover, I fail to see how he can believe that his complicated interpretation of Averroes can be backed up by his interpretation of Alexander and Philoponus: they seem to represent three quite different doctrines indeed. Although a quick glance at Zabarella\u2019s other medieval sources seems to confirm his classification of them, it cannot be ruled out that closer inspection will yield some surprises, as it did with Philoponus. The details of Zabarella\u2019s own theory of mixture still await further investigation.\r\n\r\nTo conclude on a more general note: in charting the commentary tradition on Aristotle\u2019s work from Late Antiquity through Arabic, Latin Medieval, and Renaissance authors, it is tempting to assume we are dealing with a single line of tradition. However, it is still far from clear which ancient commentaries were available (in Greek or in Arabic, Syrian, or Latin translation) at what date. But even if this can be established, we cannot be sure that a particular commentator actually used his predecessors\u2019 commentaries, even when he refers to them by name: perhaps he merely copied a reference from another commentary. In this way, Zabarella\u2019s mistake may have arisen. More importantly, every commentator who analyzes the problem of the potentiality of the ingredients in a mixture as it is presented in Aristotle\u2019s texts in On Generation and Corruption is faced with a limited number of possible solutions. Every commentator, then, is perfectly capable of re-inventing the wheel. However, the application of the third kind of potentiality in the context of mixture seems to have been invented for the first time by John Philoponus.\r\n[conclusion p. 434-435]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ldUX6hfn5ClzTTs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1528,"section_of":1419,"pages":"413-436","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1037","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1037,"authors_free":[{"id":1571,"entry_id":1037,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":284,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schmitt, Charles Bernard","free_first_name":"Charles Bernard","free_last_name":"Schmitt","norm_person":{"id":284,"first_name":"Charles Bernard","last_name":"Schmitt","full_name":"Schmitt, Charles Bernard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118846744","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1572,"entry_id":1037,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century"},"abstract":"As it is generally accepted, the term \u2018Renaissance\u2019 refers to a historical period in which there was a revival of interest in the literature, styles, and forms of Classical Antiquity. Though the \u2018revival\u2019 is usually understood to refer specifically to ancient \u2018literary\u2019 texts, there can be no doubt that the specialized technical treatises of philosophy, natural science, mathematics, and medicine played a role equally important, if not more important, in the cultural and intellectual life of the Renaissance. In addition to the rediscovery of the integral texts of Homer and the Greek dramatists, Cicero\u2019s Letters to Atticus, Quintilian, and Lucretius, the fifteenth century also saw the recovery of much of Galen, Theophrastus, Plato, Plotinus, and Proclus, Pappus, Diogenes Laertius, and Sextus Empiricus, as well as many additional classical authors of specialized literature. Indeed, the \u2018Renaissance\u2019 was a revival of the technical knowledge bequeathed by Antiquity as much as of works of recognized literary and rhetorical quality.\r\n\r\nOne aspect of the influence of ancient literature on the Renaissance which has received little attention until fairly recently is the role of the Greek commentators on Aristotle. In that vast corpus, most of which is conveniently assembled for us in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, there is a wealth of interpretative and supplementary material, which is of great use not only for an understanding of the Aristotelian text itself but also for understanding its historical context and the philosophical positions that were in competition with those of Aristotle in antiquity. A certain number of the Greek commentaries were known in the Middle Ages, both in the Islamic and in the Christian worlds, but such knowledge was very fragmentary. Only a small portion of the extant commentaries was available in Latin before the sixteenth century. Some of these attained a degree of importance and played a central role in the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century discussions of the soul, for example. These medieval versions are presently being edited in a critical fashion by a group of scholars at Louvain; this series should take its place alongside the Greek texts produced in the last century by the Berlin Academy of Sciences. So far, editions of commentaries by Themistius, Ammonius, Philoponus, Simplicius, Alexander, and Eustratius have appeared.\r\n\r\nBut it remained for the sixteenth century to make accessible most of the material. For example, less than half of the works attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias contained in the CAG and Supplementum Aristotelicum were available in the Middle Ages, and, among the expositions of Philoponus, only the commentary on the De Anima was available.\r\n\r\nThe need for a comprehensive publication of all of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle was already noted and made a program for the future in Aldo Manuzio\u2019s prefatory letter to the first volume of his editio princeps of Aristotle in 1495. Although Aldo himself did not live to achieve his aim, he did initiate it, and between that date and 1540 nearly the entire Greek corpus was made available to European scholars. Parallel with the publication of the Greek texts\u2014and generally delayed by only a few years\u2014was the publication of Latin translations of the same texts, thus making the material accessible to a much wider readership than the rather restricted group who could cope effectively with the Greek text of the commentators. Most of the Greek editions themselves, as well as the majority of the translations, issued from Venetian presses, though Paris and Lyon served as secondary publication centers. By mid-century essentially everything could be read in Latin, and the impact of the new material can be traced in the Aristotelian literature of the period.\r\n\r\nIn reading the many commentaries on Aristotle and other philosophical works of the sixteenth century, one clearly discerns the rising tide of interest in these expositions across a spectrum of philosophical and scientific topics. Hitherto, the impact of these new sources of information has only imperfectly been charted, primarily with regard to discussions of the soul. Nardi\u2019s fundamental work on Simplicius, the more recent studies on Alexander by Cranz, and on the general Neoplatonism of the commentaries by Mahoney have served to draw attention to the rich vein of material there to be mined. The range of the impact\u2014in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, and psychology\u2014has scarcely been charted, nor has the interplay between Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, and medieval and Renaissance Latin interpretations of Aristotle been evaluated and analyzed.\r\n\r\nDuring the second half of the sixteenth century, those who wanted to understand Aristotle\u2014which for them meant philosophy tout court\u2014frequently tried to relate the text of the Stagirite to the varying interpretations of Philoponus, Simplicius, Averroes (1126\u201398), Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225\u201374), John of Jandun (died 1328), Pomponazzi (1462\u20131525), and Soto (1494\/5\u20131560), among many others.\r\n\r\nParticularly little studied has been the impact of the newly available Greek commentators on the Physics. Here is meant primarily Simplicius and Philoponus, both of whom left behind extensive and detailed expositions of that work, neither of which was known directly to Latin writers of the Middle Ages but which were to become available in the sixteenth century. As long ago as Wohlwill and Duhem, it has been known that some of the criticisms and alternative positions put forward in the commentaries on the Physics by the two sixth-century writers later attained importance in the history of the development of physical thought. Moreover, it was also realized by the same historians that the critiques of Aristotle put forward by Simplicius and Philoponus were very similar to some of the positions that became central in the formulation of the \u2018new science\u2019 of the seventeenth century.\r\n\r\nThus far, however, there has been little systematic attempt to consider the reaction of the sixteenth century as a whole to the reorientation made possible by the availability of Simplicius and Philoponus. The story is not simple, and it cannot be covered comprehensively here, though I hope to be able to indicate some lines further research might take. What I shall do is to focus upon Philoponus, whose significance in the story is possibly less than that of Simplicius, but without a full story of the fortune of the Physics of both authors a valid conclusion regarding their relative merits is not possible.\r\n\r\nBefore turning to a consideration of the impact of the Grammarian\u2019s partial commentary on the Physics (only the first four books are integrally extant), I should like to deal briefly with two other points. First, I should like to sketch a portrait of Philoponus as a commentator, emphasizing why what he had to say was of potential importance for the sixteenth century. Secondly, I shall say something general about the recovery and assimilation of his philosophical works in the West down to the sixteenth century. [introduction p. 210-213]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ub0AryY729JHN5w","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":284,"full_name":"Schmitt, Charles Bernard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1037,"section_of":184,"pages":"210-230","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":184,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1987c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2010","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Richard Sorabji is the editor of a vast and growing number of translations of ancient\r\ncommentaries on Aristotle and the editor of several excellent collections of studies on the\r\nAristotelian tradition. Philoponus, a 6th century Christian thinker who was originally trained as\r\na Neoplatonist, is best remembered today for his attack on Aristotle's 'physics'; his influence on\r\nlater philosophers and scientists and his role in the reevaluation of Aristotelian science and\r\nnatural philosophy are indeed remarkable. The second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection\r\nof Aristotelian Science includes a new two-part introduction which offers a survey of the\r\nrapidly expanding scholarship on Philoponus and of recent archeological discoveries (such as\r\nthe lecture rooms of the 6th century Alexandrian school), as well as new insights into the\r\ninteraction between Greek paganism and Christianity in connection with Philoponus and his\r\nmilieu. The twelve chapters included in this collection are written by very prominent scholars\r\nand tackle topics such as Philoponus' corollaries on space and time, the differences between his\r\ntheological views (e.g. on the three hypostases) and the prevailing dogmas of the time, the\r\nrelation between his theory about impetus and later treatments of impetus and related\r\nconcepts in a number of Arab thinkers and in Galileo. This collection is one of the most reliable\r\nand wide-ranging introductions to Philoponus' views and influence, and those interested in late\r\nancient philosophy and its interactions with Christian thought will find this to be a most\r\nvaluable resource. [Review by Tiberiu Popa]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":184,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London","series":"BICS Supplement","volume":"103","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1535,"authors_free":[{"id":2675,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2676,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2677,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2678,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus","main_title":{"title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"},"abstract":"The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and\u2014identified as recently as 2005\u2014fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE.\r\n\r\nEven if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators\u2014Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus\u2014would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19\u201322; 14,4\u201312) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author\u2019s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle\u2019s work.\r\n\r\nBut the author\u2019s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry\u2019s lost Ad Gedalium.\r\n\r\nThe grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1\u201314.\r\n\r\nDespite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship.\r\n\r\nThe entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle\u2019s well-known distinction there between properties that are \u2018said of a subject\u2019 and those that are \u2018in a subject.\u2019 As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10\u201315, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8\u20139,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories.\r\n\r\nAt 9,30\u201310,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16\u201324, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (t\u00f4i eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors.\r\n\r\nThe Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics.\r\n\r\nSince our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author\u2019s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9\u20132,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century.\r\n[introduction p. 231-233]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1535,"section_of":1419,"pages":"231-262","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"712","_score":null,"_source":{"id":712,"authors_free":[{"id":1062,"entry_id":712,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2012,"entry_id":712,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius\u2018 polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius\u2018 polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens"},"abstract":"I am not entirely comfortable finding myself introducing a discordant note into a collection intended to celebrate the refreshing originality of Philoponus\u2019 ideas. I shall, however, be speaking for Simplicius, vindictive pagan that he was, and shall hope to be an effective counterweight to what is said in other chapters. I shall be talking within the framework of a general interpretation of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo. The commentary is an exegetical work undertaken as a paean to the Creator or \u2018Demiurge.\u2019 Its basic theory on the physical structure of celestial matter is that this matter is a combination of the superior parts (akrot\u00eates) of the four elements, dominated by the purely luminous superior part of fire.\r\n\r\nMy aim will be to show how this theory can be seen as a reaction to the theories of John Philoponus. Philoponus had turned to the Timaeus for support in his Contra Aristotelem and had attacked the Aristotelian doctrine that the heavens are made of a fifth element and that the world is eternal. Well before Copernicus, Philoponus denied that there was any substantial difference between the heavens and the sublunary world. In his reply to the Contra Aristotelem, Simplicius reaffirms the divinity, the transcendence, and the eternal nature of the heavens. His exegesis aims to connect, rather than contrast, Plato\u2019s Timaeus and Aristotle\u2019s De caelo.\r\n\r\nIt is, moreover, a religious act, a spiritual exercise designed to turn the soul (both Simplicius\u2019 and his reader\u2019s) towards the Demiurge. This conversion is our initiation into the grandeur of the universe and of the heavens, and his description of the physical nature of the heavens is one of the most valuable aspects of the revelation. Those readers still under Philoponus\u2019 spell cannot achieve this revelation until they have undergone a preliminary act of purification, which is the refutation of the arguments of Philoponus\u2019 Contra Aristotelem. In this way, Simplicius\u2019 attack is directed at a target that is simultaneously philosophical and religious.\r\n\r\nA correct reading and interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s De caelo leads not only to the acquisition of intellectual knowledge but also, and above all, to our elevation through thought (a thought that we live) to the whole universe and to the Demiurge. It is a form of prayer addressed to them. The sacrilegious blasphemy of the Christian Philoponus is countered by the Neoplatonist liturgy, a rightful celebration of their God. [introduction p. 97-98]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RJi3pyBneebP54s","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":712,"section_of":184,"pages":"97-123","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":184,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1987c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2010","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Richard Sorabji is the editor of a vast and growing number of translations of ancient\r\ncommentaries on Aristotle and the editor of several excellent collections of studies on the\r\nAristotelian tradition. Philoponus, a 6th century Christian thinker who was originally trained as\r\na Neoplatonist, is best remembered today for his attack on Aristotle's 'physics'; his influence on\r\nlater philosophers and scientists and his role in the reevaluation of Aristotelian science and\r\nnatural philosophy are indeed remarkable. The second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection\r\nof Aristotelian Science includes a new two-part introduction which offers a survey of the\r\nrapidly expanding scholarship on Philoponus and of recent archeological discoveries (such as\r\nthe lecture rooms of the 6th century Alexandrian school), as well as new insights into the\r\ninteraction between Greek paganism and Christianity in connection with Philoponus and his\r\nmilieu. The twelve chapters included in this collection are written by very prominent scholars\r\nand tackle topics such as Philoponus' corollaries on space and time, the differences between his\r\ntheological views (e.g. on the three hypostases) and the prevailing dogmas of the time, the\r\nrelation between his theory about impetus and later treatments of impetus and related\r\nconcepts in a number of Arab thinkers and in Galileo. This collection is one of the most reliable\r\nand wide-ranging introductions to Philoponus' views and influence, and those interested in late\r\nancient philosophy and its interactions with Christian thought will find this to be a most\r\nvaluable resource. [Review by Tiberiu Popa]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":184,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London","series":"BICS Supplement","volume":"103","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius\u2018 polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1508","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1508,"authors_free":[{"id":2619,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2620,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2621,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place (Corollarium de loco) is not a doxographic text but a strictly Neoplatonic philosophical work, with its own philosophical method. It takes the form of a digression interrupting the continuity of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (itself a written work intended for readers, hoi entugkhanontes, hoi enteuxomenoi), and its literary genre is that of a monograph treatise using dialectic and exegesis as its principal methods. The dialectical method consists in discussing the opinions of Simplicius\u2019 predecessors, ancient and modern, mainly Aristotle and Proclus, to pave the way for the exposition of the truth, following the method inaugurated by Aristotle in the Topics and still very much alive. It also proceeds by puzzles and solutions (aporiai kai luseis). Th e exegetic method reappears even within a digression which breaks with the continuous commentary and Simplicius devotes sometimes long passages to quoting and commenting on texts from Aristotle, Theophrastus, Proclus, and Damascius, but also from the Chaldaean Oracles, Iamblichus, or Syrianus. Throughout this piece Simplicius maintains complete control over his material which includes the art of rhetoric, dialectical technique, and his philosophic intention. In it, he replaces the Aristotelian defi nition of place (\u2018the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body\u2019 (to tou periekhontos peras akin\u00eaton pr\u00f4ton), Phys . 4.4, 212a20\u20131) with a new defi nition taken from his master Damascius (place is the measure of the intrinsic positioning (metron t\u00eas these\u00f4s) of the parts of a body, and of its right position in a greater surrounding whole), and he departs from Aristotle\u2019s thought with a radical innovation which progressively works its way in. [introduction p. 531-532]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nyFqYhK3Z7baSF2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1508,"section_of":1419,"pages":"531\u2013540","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":535,"authors_free":[{"id":756,"entry_id":535,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":757,"entry_id":535,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators","main_title":{"title":"The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators"},"abstract":" In Chapter 3, Hans Gottschalk surveys the commentators on Aristotle from the \r\nfi rst century bc to late in the second century ad , and some of their Platonist \r\nopponents. He gives the most space to the fi rst of them, Andronicus, persuasively rguing that he worked in Athens without going to Rome, and telling something \r\nof Andronicus\u2019 philosophical comments on Aristotle and of his editorial work \r\non Aristotle\u2019s school writings (as opposed to his works then better known, but \r\nnow largely lost, for publication outside the school). He rightly says that \r\nAndronicus presented Aristotle as a system. As I indicated in commenting on \r\nChapter 1 above, his younger contemporary in Athens, Boethus, stimulated \r\nenormous reaction from later commentators by his detailed and idiosyncratic \r\ninterpretation of Aristotle, fragments of which they recorded. So the description \r\n\u2018scholasticism\u2019, insofar as it suggests to us something rather dry, is not a \r\ndescription we should now be likely to use, especially aft er the recent discovery \r\nof new fragments of Boethus. But Aristotle Re-Interpreted will include a \r\ncontribution on some of Boethus\u2019 achievement and further detail on the \r\ncommentators aft er him is supplied in other recent works listed above in note 6. \r\nTh e only big matter of controversy concerns the two words \u2018critical edition\u2019 at the \r\nopening of Gottschalk\u2019s chapter, which could be taken for granted in 1990. It was \r\nchallenged by Jonathan Barnes in 1997. 9 A critical edition is produced by \r\ncomparing diff erent copies of the original in order to discover more closely what \r\nthe original may have said. Barnes argued powerfully that this is not what \r\nAndronicus did. Indeed, if he did not go to Rome to examine the manuscript \r\nthere, it is even less likely that he did. One reaction was to think that this greatly \r\nreduced the importance of Andronicus. But a contribution in Aristotle Re-\r\nInterpreted will take up the other editorial activity including the presentation of \r\nAristotle\u2019s school writings as a system. It was far more valuable, according to this \r\nargument, to create a coherent canon of Aristotle\u2019s voluminous school writings, \r\nby joining or separating pieces and arranging them in a coherent order for \r\nreading, than to seek the original wording in a critical edition. [Sorabji: Introduction to the Second Edition, p. xii]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nJ4WSAlewntt7lZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":535,"section_of":200,"pages":"61-88","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":200,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told \r\nat book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some \r\nof the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest \r\nresearch. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar \r\neven to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators \r\nhas been illustrated elsewhere. 1 Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as \r\nto set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further \r\nphilosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. \r\n Th e importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the \r\nthought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, \r\npartly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek \r\nphilosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical \r\nworks. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the \r\nchapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due \r\npartly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire \r\nmedieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle \r\ntransformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian \r\nChurch. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in \r\nthe philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers. [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":200,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1177","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1177,"authors_free":[{"id":1751,"entry_id":1177,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":132,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","free_first_name":"Richard ","free_last_name":"Gaskin","norm_person":{"id":132,"first_name":"Richard ","last_name":"Gaskin","full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1049853571","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2358,"entry_id":1177,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition","main_title":{"title":"The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition"},"abstract":"As far as traditional classifications go, the Stoics count as materialists. But it is notorious that there were four things in their world-view which do not fit this caracterization: time, place, the void and the so-called \u2018sayables', or lekta (SE AM 10.218 = FDS 720). Lekta consist of three main kinds of quasi-linguistic item: centrally, simple propositions (as well as certain non-assertoric, but grammatically autonomous, items) are \u2018complete\u2019 lekta (DL 7 .6-8 = FDS 696, 874; SE AM 8.70-74). From these propositions, more complex \u2018complete\u2019 lekta maybe constructed, such as conditionals (DL 7.71) or syllogisms (DL 7.63). And within the structure of complete lekta, \u2018incomplete\u2019 lekta, such as predicates, maybe discerned. I call lekta quasi-linguistic, rather than linguistic, because, as we learn from an important passage in Sextus (AM 8.11-13 = FDS 67), the Stoics distinguished lekta both from language and from physical objects in the world. Hence linguistic items such as the verb (rh\u00eama) \u2018writes\u2019 and the complete sentence (logos) \u2018Socrates writes\u2019 should be kept rigorously apart from their corresponding lekta - the predicate (katigorema) writes and the complete proposition (axidma) Socrates writes - which the linguistic expressions signify (semainein: SE AM 8.11 - 12, DL 7.56, 58, 65). \r\nIn this paper I shall examine the Stoic treatment of the main constituents of the complete lekton: cases and predicates. I shall argue that cases are, like predicates, (incomplete) lekta, and that the verbal noun played a central role in Stoic thinking about lekta. In the light of these reflections, I shall conclude with some speculative remarks on the unity of the proposition. [Introduction, p. 91]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tocHWc6xfMEeg9C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":132,"full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1177,"section_of":199,"pages":"91-107","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8uyail9ZCl9wfr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"916","_score":null,"_source":{"id":916,"authors_free":[{"id":1351,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1352,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1353,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle"},"abstract":"In Neoplatonism, though not in Aristotelianism, Plato and Aristotle are transformed in a variety of different ways. The transformation is partly driven by a wish to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, but only partly. There is less effort to harmonize the two in some commentators than in others, and on some issues, as we shall see, there is less harmonization among our commentators than there was in the Middle Platonism of an earlier period. Further, the transformation of views is driven by other factors besides harmonization.\r\n\r\nHarmonization is most marked in Porphyry and Ammonius. It seems to be least favored by Syrianus and Proclus. Simplicius says that the good commentator should find Plato and Aristotle in harmony on most points (In Cat. 7.23\u201332). The presumption for a Neoplatonist is that, in the case of disharmony, Plato will be right. However, this presumption is reversed by a late commentator, Olympiodorus, who backs Aristotle against Plato on the definition of relatives (In Cat. 112.19ff).\r\n\r\nAs an example of harmonization, Porphyry, on the standard interpretation, defended Aristotle\u2019s categories from Plotinus\u2019 objections in Enneads VI.1\u20133. Plotinus accepted only four of Aristotle\u2019s ten categories for classifying the world perceived by the senses, and even then with heavy qualifications. He complained that Aristotle\u2019s categories left out the world of intelligible Forms from which the perceptible world derived. Sensible qualities, for example, are only shadows of the activities of intelligible Forms. Porphyry replied (In Cat. 57.7\u20138, 58.5\u20137, and 91.19\u201327) that Aristotle\u2019s categories are not meant to be exhaustive. They are only intended to distinguish words insofar as they signify things, and words are chiefly used to speak about sensibles. For that limited task, the categories are to be valued. Porphyry thus made Aristotle\u2019s categories forever acceptable to Platonism. Hereafter, it became increasingly useful to reinforce what I regard as the myth of harmony in the face of Christian charges that pagan philosophers contradicted each other. There was an irony in this, because the harmonization\u2014whose motive was thus partly anti-Christian\u2014ended in the thirteenth century by helping Thomas Aquinas present Aristotle as safe for Christianity. This assimilation to Plato had turned Aristotle\u2019s God from a thinker into a Creator and Aristotle\u2019s human soul into an immortal one.\r\n\r\nThere can, however, be more than one approach toward the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. Lloyd Gerson, in this volume, offers the most thoroughgoing modern attempt to argue that it is basically correct. If, as I have supposed, it is not, the question arises whether pressure toward a false harmonization would be bad for philosophy. Having to convince Christians that Plato and Aristotle agreed with each other on almost everything would surely lead to a loss of their wonderful insights. But in fact, it gave a distinctive character, interesting in its own right, to Neoplatonism. Curiously, it also led to an even closer reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, because their texts had to be read very closely indeed if one was going to argue that what they really meant was something different from what might first appear.\r\n\r\nIn fact, the pressure to harmonize proved a valuable stimulus to the imagination in the Greek Neoplatonist commentators. They took Plato to postulate a changeless and timeless world of divine Platonic Forms, and they had to think out how such a world would relate to the temporal, changing world described by Aristotle.\r\n\r\nI should now like to look at some examples of what happened to the views of Plato and Aristotle in Neoplatonism. I shall ask what factors besides harmonization are at work, whether Plato is transformed in the process as much as Aristotle, whether the harmonizations are hostile or friendly to Aristotle, and where the transformations proved important for subsequent philosophy. [introduction p. 185-186]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eWLLcrq58WWLfJm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":916,"section_of":196,"pages":"185-193","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":196,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Reading Plato in antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PFetB36hpbaF0VD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":196,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1027","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1027,"authors_free":[{"id":1551,"entry_id":1027,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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":1552,"entry_id":1027,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The school of Alexander?","main_title":{"title":"The school of Alexander?"},"abstract":"Alexander of Aphrodisias was appointed by the emperors as a public teacher of Aristotelian philosophy at some time between 198 and 209 AD.\r\nAs a public teacher, it is likely that he had, in some sense, a school. But trying to establish what happened in that school and how it functioned is comparable to the task we would face if we had to determine what went on in a philosophy department in a modern university based on a selection of books by the professor, a confused collection of his papers, the notes from which he lectured, and the essays of his students, with no obvious indication of which was which.\r\n\r\nWe know a considerable amount about the Neoplatonic schools of the fifth and sixth centuries AD and the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings in them. We know the place they had in the curriculum, the order in which they were read, and we can compare the ways in which different commentators approached the question of the relationship between the works of Aristotle and those of Plato. We can trace relations between teachers and their pupils, and we are sometimes told that a particular text is a pupil\u2019s record of his teacher\u2019s utterances. The very organization of the commentaries sometimes reflects and clarifies the requirements of the teaching context\u2014in the division of a commentary into separate lectures and the placing of a general summary of a section of argument before the discussion of particular points.\r\n\r\nFor the medieval period, too, we have copious information on the organization of teaching and study.\r\nWith Alexander, matters are very different. We know the names of some of his teachers, and his surviving works provide evidence for his disagreements with them. We also know something of his disagreements with other philosophers of his own generation or the generation before, and we can trace\u2014however controversially\u2014his influence on later thinkers.\r\n\r\nBut we do not know the name of a single one of his immediate pupils, and for all that we can tell, the influence of other writers on him might have been largely, and his influence on other writers entirely, through the medium of writing rather than personal encounter. After all, we are explicitly told that Alexander\u2019s commentaries were among those read in Plotinus\u2019 school.\r\n\r\nIt is, however, in principle unlikely that any thinker in the ancient world would have communicated entirely through the written, rather than the spoken, word. Some of the writings attributed to Alexander are most naturally seen in the context of his teaching activities or debates within his circle.\r\n\r\nThese writings include commentaries on Aristotelian works, treatises or monographs on particular topics such as those On the Soul and On Fate, and numerous short discussions. Three books of these collected discussions are entitled phusikai skholikai aporiai kai luseis\u2014\u2018School-discussion problems and solutions on nature\u2019; a fourth is titled Problems on Ethics but sub-titled, no doubt in imitation of the preceding three books when it was united with them, skholikai \u00eathikai aporiai kai luseis\u2014\u2018School-discussion problems and solutions on ethics.\u2019\r\n\r\nA further collection was transmitted as the second book of Alexander\u2019s treatise On the Soul and labeled mantissa or \u2018makeweight\u2019 by the Berlin editor Bruns. Other texts essentially similar to those in these collections survive in Arabic, though not in Greek, and there is evidence to suggest that there were other collections now lost.\r\n\r\nThe circumstances in which these collections were put together are unclear; it was not always expertly done, and while some of the titles attached to particular pieces seem to preserve valuable additional information, others are inept or unhelpful. Nor is it clear at what date the collections were assembled.\r\n\r\nIt is not my concern here to provide a full enumeration of the works attributed to Alexander or to classify them in detail. That has been done elsewhere by both myself and others. Rather, I will proceed to a discussion of what the works can tell us about the context in which they arose. It will be helpful to start with a consideration of the relation of Alexander\u2019s works to those of his predecessors, teachers, and contemporaries. [introduction p. 83-85]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wgzq8ffCF70YlYd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1027,"section_of":1453,"pages":"83-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The school of Alexander?"]}