| Title | The κοινη αισθεσις in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 163-174 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Lautner, Peter |
| Editor(s) | Stone, Martin W. F. , Baltussen, Han , Adamson, Peter |
| Translator(s) |
| I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koinê aisthêsis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koinê aisthêsis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koinê aisthêsis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority. That we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koinê aisthêsis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koinê aisthêsis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension. It seems that the koinê aisthêsis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator’s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle’s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koinê aisthêsis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koinê aisthêsis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koinê aisthêsis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them. This priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities—he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koinê aisthêsis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses. Our comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koinê aisthêsis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koinê aisthêsis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koinê aisthêsis. Proclus’ arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic. Second, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1193","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1193,"authors_free":[{"id":1764,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lautner, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2064,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2065,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2066,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"},"abstract":"I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority.\r\n\r\nThat we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension.\r\n\r\nIt seems that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator\u2019s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle\u2019s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them.\r\n\r\nThis priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities\u2014he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses.\r\n\r\nOur comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. Proclus\u2019 arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic.\r\n\r\nSecond, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1193,"section_of":233,"pages":"163-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
| Title | Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 37-50 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Betegh, Gábor |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
| The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled ‘a commentary’, or a hypomnema and its unidentified author has habitually been called ‘the Derveni commentator.’ The roll, which was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been dated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. Moreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed sometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it appears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the commentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, the Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the earliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual analysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not entirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a ‘commentary’ at all, and, if so, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this paper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets of problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to asking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, conforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a commentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, I shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his exegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author’s cognitive and pragmatic attitude towards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the specific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is also in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called ‘allegorical’ method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1007","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1007,"authors_free":[{"id":1516,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":398,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","free_first_name":"G\u00e1bor","free_last_name":"Betegh","norm_person":{"id":398,"first_name":"G\u00e1bor","last_name":"Betegh","full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140805044","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2329,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2330,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2331,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"},"abstract":"The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled \u2018a commentary\u2019, or a hypomnema \r\nand its unidentified author has habitually been called \u2018the Derveni commentator.\u2019 The roll, \r\nwhich was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been \r\ndated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. \r\nMoreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed \r\nsometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it \r\nappears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the \r\ncommentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, \r\nthe Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the \r\nearliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual \r\nanalysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not \r\nentirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a \u2018commentary\u2019 at all, and, if \r\nso, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this \r\npaper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets \r\nof problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to \r\nasking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, \r\nconforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a \r\ncommentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, \r\nI shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his \r\nexegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author\u2019s cognitive and pragmatic attitude \r\ntowards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the \r\nspecific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is \r\nalso in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called \r\n\u2018allegorical\u2019 method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":398,"full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1007,"section_of":233,"pages":"37-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1007,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries","volume":"38","issue":"1","pages":"37-50"}},"sort":[2004]}
| Title | The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 239-268 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sellars, J. T. |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
| In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, outlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies containing further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: [l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence (London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. The focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to Byzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, Byzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum Aristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud Guillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual commentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very useful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine Comprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more recent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now supplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1029","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1029,"authors_free":[{"id":1555,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":299,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sellars, J. T.","free_first_name":"J. T.","free_last_name":"Sellars","norm_person":{"id":299,"first_name":"J. T.","last_name":"Sellars","full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1011826046","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1556,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1557,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1558,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide","main_title":{"title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide"},"abstract":"In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, \r\noutlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies \r\ncontaining further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: \r\n[l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence \r\n(London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. \r\nThe focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to \r\nByzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, \r\nByzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum \r\nAristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud \r\nGuillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual \r\ncommentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very \r\nuseful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine \r\nComprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more \r\nrecent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now \r\nsupplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":299,"full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1029,"section_of":233,"pages":"239-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
| Title | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Publication Place | London |
| Publisher | Institute of Classical Studies |
| Series | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS) |
| Volume | Supplement 83.1 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
| This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji’s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nqTHgI2QahbENt5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"233","_score":null,"_source":{"id":233,"authors_free":[{"id":297,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":298,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":299,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1"},"abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","btype":4,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
| Title | Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 1-19 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Fazzo, Silvia |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
| [Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the study of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of research.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, chiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. In the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to identify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name but with titles different from those familiar to us. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"552","_score":null,"_source":{"id":552,"authors_free":[{"id":778,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":77,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","free_first_name":"Silvia","free_last_name":"Fazzo","norm_person":{"id":77,"first_name":"Silvia","last_name":"Fazzo","full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2100,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2101,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2102,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the \r\nstudy of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of \r\nresearch.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, \r\nchiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. \r\nIn the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to \r\nidentify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name \r\nbut with titles different from those familiar to us.","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":552,"section_of":233,"pages":"1-19","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
| Title | Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 97-120 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
| From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle’s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry’s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle’s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato’s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle’s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8). There is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike. In Porphyry’s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle’s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato’s doctrine: Aristotle’s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle’s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato’s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle’s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander. In fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle’s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry’s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist. If Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry’s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry’s position on Aristotle’s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle’s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1362","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1362,"authors_free":[{"id":2038,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2399,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2400,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2401,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"},"abstract":"From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry\u2019s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle\u2019s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato\u2019s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle\u2019s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8).\r\n\r\nThere is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike.\r\n\r\nIn Porphyry\u2019s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato\u2019s doctrine: Aristotle\u2019s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle\u2019s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato\u2019s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle\u2019s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander.\r\n\r\nIn fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry\u2019s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist.\r\n\r\nIf Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry\u2019s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry\u2019s position on Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1362,"section_of":233,"pages":"97-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
| Title | Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 1-19 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Fazzo, Silvia |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the study of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of research.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, chiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. In the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to identify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name but with titles different from those familiar to us. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"552","_score":null,"_source":{"id":552,"authors_free":[{"id":778,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":77,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","free_first_name":"Silvia","free_last_name":"Fazzo","norm_person":{"id":77,"first_name":"Silvia","last_name":"Fazzo","full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2100,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2101,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2102,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the \r\nstudy of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of \r\nresearch.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, \r\nchiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. \r\nIn the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to \r\nidentify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name \r\nbut with titles different from those familiar to us.","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":552,"section_of":233,"pages":"1-19","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition"]}
| Title | Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 37-50 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Betegh, Gábor |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled ‘a commentary’, or a hypomnema and its unidentified author has habitually been called ‘the Derveni commentator.’ The roll, which was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been dated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. Moreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed sometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it appears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the commentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, the Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the earliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual analysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not entirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a ‘commentary’ at all, and, if so, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this paper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets of problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to asking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, conforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a commentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, I shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his exegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author’s cognitive and pragmatic attitude towards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the specific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is also in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called ‘allegorical’ method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1007","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1007,"authors_free":[{"id":1516,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":398,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","free_first_name":"G\u00e1bor","free_last_name":"Betegh","norm_person":{"id":398,"first_name":"G\u00e1bor","last_name":"Betegh","full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140805044","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2329,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2330,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2331,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"},"abstract":"The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled \u2018a commentary\u2019, or a hypomnema \r\nand its unidentified author has habitually been called \u2018the Derveni commentator.\u2019 The roll, \r\nwhich was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been \r\ndated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. \r\nMoreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed \r\nsometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it \r\nappears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the \r\ncommentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, \r\nthe Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the \r\nearliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual \r\nanalysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not \r\nentirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a \u2018commentary\u2019 at all, and, if \r\nso, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this \r\npaper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets \r\nof problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to \r\nasking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, \r\nconforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a \r\ncommentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, \r\nI shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his \r\nexegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author\u2019s cognitive and pragmatic attitude \r\ntowards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the \r\nspecific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is \r\nalso in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called \r\n\u2018allegorical\u2019 method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":398,"full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1007,"section_of":233,"pages":"37-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1007,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries","volume":"38","issue":"1","pages":"37-50"}},"sort":["Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"]}
| Title | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Publication Place | London |
| Publisher | Institute of Classical Studies |
| Series | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS) |
| Volume | Supplement 83.1 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji’s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nqTHgI2QahbENt5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"233","_score":null,"_source":{"id":233,"authors_free":[{"id":297,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":298,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":299,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1"},"abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","btype":4,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1"]}
| Title | Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 97-120 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle’s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry’s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle’s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato’s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle’s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8). There is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike. In Porphyry’s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle’s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato’s doctrine: Aristotle’s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle’s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato’s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle’s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander. In fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle’s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry’s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist. If Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry’s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry’s position on Aristotle’s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle’s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1362","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1362,"authors_free":[{"id":2038,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2399,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2400,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2401,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"},"abstract":"From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry\u2019s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle\u2019s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato\u2019s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle\u2019s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8).\r\n\r\nThere is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike.\r\n\r\nIn Porphyry\u2019s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato\u2019s doctrine: Aristotle\u2019s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle\u2019s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato\u2019s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle\u2019s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander.\r\n\r\nIn fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry\u2019s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist.\r\n\r\nIf Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry\u2019s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry\u2019s position on Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1362,"section_of":233,"pages":"97-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"]}
| Title | The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 239-268 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sellars, J. T. |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, outlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies containing further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: [l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence (London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. The focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to Byzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, Byzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum Aristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud Guillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual commentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very useful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine Comprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more recent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now supplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1029","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1029,"authors_free":[{"id":1555,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":299,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sellars, J. T.","free_first_name":"J. T.","free_last_name":"Sellars","norm_person":{"id":299,"first_name":"J. T.","last_name":"Sellars","full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1011826046","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1556,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1557,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1558,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide","main_title":{"title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide"},"abstract":"In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, \r\noutlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies \r\ncontaining further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: \r\n[l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence \r\n(London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. \r\nThe focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to \r\nByzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, \r\nByzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum \r\nAristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud \r\nGuillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual \r\ncommentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very \r\nuseful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine \r\nComprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more \r\nrecent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now \r\nsupplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":299,"full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1029,"section_of":233,"pages":"239-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide"]}
| Title | The κοινη αισθεσις in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 163-174 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Lautner, Peter |
| Editor(s) | Stone, Martin W. F. , Baltussen, Han , Adamson, Peter |
| Translator(s) |
I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koinê aisthêsis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koinê aisthêsis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koinê aisthêsis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority. That we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koinê aisthêsis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koinê aisthêsis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension. It seems that the koinê aisthêsis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator’s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle’s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koinê aisthêsis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koinê aisthêsis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koinê aisthêsis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them. This priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities—he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koinê aisthêsis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses. Our comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koinê aisthêsis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koinê aisthêsis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koinê aisthêsis. Proclus’ arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic. Second, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1193","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1193,"authors_free":[{"id":1764,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lautner, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2064,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2065,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2066,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"},"abstract":"I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority.\r\n\r\nThat we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension.\r\n\r\nIt seems that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator\u2019s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle\u2019s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them.\r\n\r\nThis priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities\u2014he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses.\r\n\r\nOur comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. Proclus\u2019 arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic.\r\n\r\nSecond, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1193,"section_of":233,"pages":"163-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"]}