| Title | Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the ‘Categories’ |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1987 |
| Published in | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie |
| Pages | 955-974 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Strange, Steven, K. |
| Editor(s) | Haase, Wolfgang |
| Translator(s) |
| The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus’ treatises, On the Genera of Being (Περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle’s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1–24), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories. At the same time, Plotinus’ student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories. This impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1–12) and Simplicius (2.3–8) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus’ objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry’s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus’ and Simplicius’ commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry’s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus’ lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this. Moreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry’s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle. My purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus’ discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus’ and Porphyry’s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry’s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus’ arguments. The consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role. My discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd. Then I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism. In the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus’ position and Porphyry’s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AVNTI4tBsipTJL7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1151","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1151,"authors_free":[{"id":1726,"entry_id":1151,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":324,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Strange, Steven, K.","free_first_name":"Steven, K.","free_last_name":"Strange","norm_person":{"id":324,"first_name":"Steven K.","last_name":"Strange","full_name":"Strange, Steven K.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/111772655X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2412,"entry_id":1151,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019"},"abstract":"The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus\u2019 treatises, On the Genera of Being (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle\u2019s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1\u201324), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, Plotinus\u2019 student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories.\r\n\r\nThis impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1\u201312) and Simplicius (2.3\u20138) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus\u2019 objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry\u2019s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus\u2019 and Simplicius\u2019 commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry\u2019s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus\u2019 lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this.\r\n\r\nMoreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry\u2019s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nMy purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus\u2019 discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus\u2019 and Porphyry\u2019s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry\u2019s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus\u2019 arguments.\r\n\r\nThe consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role.\r\n\r\nMy discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd.\r\n\r\nThen I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism.\r\n\r\nIn the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus\u2019 position and Porphyry\u2019s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AVNTI4tBsipTJL7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":324,"full_name":"Strange, Steven K.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1151,"section_of":335,"pages":"955-974","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
| Title | Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the ‘Categories’ |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1987 |
| Published in | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie |
| Pages | 955-974 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Strange, Steven, K. |
| Editor(s) | Haase, Wolfgang |
| Translator(s) |
The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus’ treatises, On the Genera of Being (Περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle’s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1–24), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories. At the same time, Plotinus’ student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories. This impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1–12) and Simplicius (2.3–8) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus’ objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry’s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus’ and Simplicius’ commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry’s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus’ lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this. Moreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry’s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle. My purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus’ discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus’ and Porphyry’s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry’s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus’ arguments. The consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role. My discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd. Then I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism. In the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus’ position and Porphyry’s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AVNTI4tBsipTJL7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1151","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1151,"authors_free":[{"id":1726,"entry_id":1151,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":324,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Strange, Steven, K.","free_first_name":"Steven, K.","free_last_name":"Strange","norm_person":{"id":324,"first_name":"Steven K.","last_name":"Strange","full_name":"Strange, Steven K.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/111772655X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2412,"entry_id":1151,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019"},"abstract":"The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus\u2019 treatises, On the Genera of Being (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle\u2019s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1\u201324), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, Plotinus\u2019 student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories.\r\n\r\nThis impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1\u201312) and Simplicius (2.3\u20138) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus\u2019 objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry\u2019s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus\u2019 and Simplicius\u2019 commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry\u2019s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus\u2019 lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this.\r\n\r\nMoreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry\u2019s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nMy purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus\u2019 discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus\u2019 and Porphyry\u2019s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry\u2019s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus\u2019 arguments.\r\n\r\nThe consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role.\r\n\r\nMy discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd.\r\n\r\nThen I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism.\r\n\r\nIn the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus\u2019 position and Porphyry\u2019s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AVNTI4tBsipTJL7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":324,"full_name":"Strange, Steven K.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1151,"section_of":335,"pages":"955-974","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019"]}