| Title | Anaximander: Zu den Quellen und seiner Einordnung im Vorsokratischen Denken |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1964 |
| Journal | Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte |
| Volume | 9 |
| Pages | 59-72 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Schwabl, Hans |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| ANAXIMANDERZU DEN QUELLEN UND SEINER EINORDNUNG IM VORS OKRATISCHEN DENKEN. Hans Schwabl Die alten Milesier können erst nach einiger kritischer Vorarbeit Ge genstand begriffsgeschichtlicher Forschung sein. Der Anfang der grie chischen Philosophie ist uns ja nur durch die Berichte Späterer überliefert und aus dem Blickwinkel einer Problemstellung, die nicht mehr die der ersten Philosophen ist. So scheint der Versuch, die Eigenart der milesischen Philosophie zu bestimmen, zunächst so gut wie aussichtslos, insbesondere wenn man bedenkt, daß nicht einmal die eigentliche Quelle unserer Nach richten, das Werk Theophrasts, uns als solche überkommen ist, sondern daß wir auch hier erst rekonstruieren müssen.Der Anfang muß also sein, zu erforschen, was Theophrast gesagt und gemeint hat. Erst dann stellt sich die Aufgabe einer Rückübersetzung sei ner Berichte ins Archaische. Diese Rückübersetzung ist nur möglich inner halb einer entwicklungsgeschichtlichen Linie, die von den Früheren zu den Milesiern1) und von diesen wieder zu den späteren Vorsokratikern2) zu ziehen ist. In unserer kurzen Skizze kann das dafür schon Geleistete bzw. noch zu Leistende nur angedeutet werden. Wir beschränken uns außerdem auf Anaximander, einmal wegen der besonderen Stellung, die ihm zukommt, dann aber auch wegen der Quellenlage, die, wenn man sie nur recht einzuschätzen weiß, doch einigermaßen tragfähige Schlüsse auf den Ansatzpunkt und die Eigenart dieses frühen Denkers gestattet. [pp. 59 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TtvN2KY9lnbgZdC |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1031","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1031,"authors_free":[{"id":1561,"entry_id":1031,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":288,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwabl, Hans","free_first_name":"Hans","free_last_name":"Schwabl","norm_person":{"id":288,"first_name":"Hans","last_name":"Schwabl","full_name":"Schwabl, Hans","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107871211","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaximander: Zu den Quellen und seiner Einordnung im Vorsokratischen Denken","main_title":{"title":"Anaximander: Zu den Quellen und seiner Einordnung im Vorsokratischen Denken"},"abstract":"ANAXIMANDERZU DEN QUELLEN UND SEINER EINORDNUNG \r\nIM VORS OKRATISCHEN DENKEN.\r\nHans Schwabl\r\nDie alten Milesier k\u00f6nnen erst nach einiger kritischer Vorarbeit Ge\u00ad\r\ngenstand begriffsgeschichtlicher Forschung sein. Der Anfang der grie\u00ad\r\nchischen Philosophie ist uns ja nur durch die Berichte Sp\u00e4terer \u00fcberliefert \r\nund aus dem Blickwinkel einer Problemstellung, die nicht mehr die der \r\nersten Philosophen ist. So scheint der Versuch, die Eigenart der milesischen \r\nPhilosophie zu bestimmen, zun\u00e4chst so gut wie aussichtslos, insbesondere \r\nwenn man bedenkt, da\u00df nicht einmal die eigentliche Quelle unserer Nach\u00ad\r\nrichten, das Werk Theophrasts, uns als solche \u00fcberkommen ist, sondern \r\nda\u00df wir auch hier erst rekonstruieren m\u00fcssen.Der Anfang mu\u00df also sein, zu erforschen, was Theophrast gesagt und \r\ngemeint hat. Erst dann stellt sich die Aufgabe einer R\u00fcck\u00fcbersetzung sei\u00ad\r\nner Berichte ins Archaische. Diese R\u00fcck\u00fcbersetzung ist nur m\u00f6glich inner\u00ad\r\nhalb einer entwicklungsgeschichtlichen Linie, die von den Fr\u00fcheren zu \r\nden Milesiern1) und von diesen wieder zu den sp\u00e4teren Vorsokratikern2) \r\nzu ziehen ist. In unserer kurzen Skizze kann das daf\u00fcr schon Geleistete \r\nbzw. noch zu Leistende nur angedeutet werden. Wir beschr\u00e4nken uns \r\nau\u00dferdem auf Anaximander, einmal wegen der besonderen Stellung, die \r\nihm zukommt, dann aber auch wegen der Quellenlage, die, wenn man sie nur recht einzusch\u00e4tzen wei\u00df, doch einigerma\u00dfen tragf\u00e4hige Schl\u00fcsse auf \r\nden Ansatzpunkt und die Eigenart dieses fr\u00fchen Denkers gestattet. [pp. 59 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1964","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TtvN2KY9lnbgZdC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":288,"full_name":"Schwabl, Hans","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1031,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"9","issue":"","pages":"59-72"}},"sort":[1964]}
| Title | The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres. From the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to Kepler |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1962 |
| Journal | Dumbarton Oaks Papers |
| Volume | 16 |
| Pages | 65-93 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wolfson, Harry Austryn |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Kepler, who, as we all know, lived under the new heaven created by Copernicus, discusses the question whether the planets are moved by Intelligences or by souls or by nature. His consideration of Intelligences as possible movers of the planets refers to a view held by those who in the Middle Ages lived under the old Ptolemaic heaven, the term Intelligences being, by a complexity of miscegenation, a descendant of what Aristotle describes as incorporeal substances. His consideration of souls or nature as possible movers of the planets touches upon a topic which was made into a problem b y the Byzantine Greek commentators of Aristotle.In this paper I shall try to show how the Byzantine commentators, in their study of the text of Aristotle, were confronted with a certain problem, how they solved that problem, and how their solution of that problem led to other problems and solutions, all of which lingered in philosophic literature down to Kepler. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/M4I0x6wRyI5xwdf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"422","_score":null,"_source":{"id":422,"authors_free":[{"id":565,"entry_id":422,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":412,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wolfson, Harry Austryn","free_first_name":"Harry Austryn","free_last_name":"Wolfson","norm_person":{"id":412,"first_name":"Harry Austryn","last_name":"Wolfson","full_name":"Wolfson, Harry Austryn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123348323","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres. From the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to Kepler","main_title":{"title":"The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres. From the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to Kepler"},"abstract":"Kepler, who, as we all know, lived under the new heaven created by Copernicus, discusses the question whether the planets are moved by Intelligences or by souls or by nature. His consideration of Intelligences \r\nas possible movers of the planets refers to a view held by those who in the Middle Ages lived under the old Ptolemaic heaven, the term Intelligences being, by a complexity of miscegenation, a descendant of what Aristotle describes as \r\nincorporeal substances. His consideration of souls or nature as possible movers of the planets touches upon a topic which was made into a problem b y the \r\nByzantine Greek commentators of Aristotle.In this paper I shall try to show how the Byzantine commentators, in their study of the text of Aristotle, were confronted with a certain problem, how they solved that problem, and how their solution of that problem led to other \r\nproblems and solutions, all of which lingered in philosophic literature down to Kepler. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1962","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M4I0x6wRyI5xwdf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":412,"full_name":"Wolfson, Harry Austryn","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":422,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Dumbarton Oaks Papers","volume":"16","issue":"","pages":"65-93"}},"sort":[1962]}
| Title | The Neoplatonic One and Plato’s Parmenides |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1962 |
| Journal | Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association |
| Volume | 93 |
| Pages | 389–401 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rist, John M. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| As long ago as 1928 Professor E. R. Dodds' demonstrated the dependence of the One of Plotinus on an interpretation of the first hypothesis of the Parmenides. His demonstration has been universally accepted. But Dodds not only showed the depen- dence of Plotinus on the Parmenides but also offered an account of the history of the doctrine of the One between the late fourth century B.C. and the third century A.D. His view is that the first three hypotheses of the Parmenides were already treated in what we should call a Neoplatonic fashion by Moderatus, a Neo- pythagorean of the second half of the first century A.D.; further, that Moderatus was not the originator of this interpretation, whose origins can in fact be traced back through Eudorus (ca. 25 B.C.) and the Neopythagoreans of his day to the Old Academy. Though Dodds is somewhat unclear at this point,2 he seems to suggest that already before the time of Eudorus the Parmenides was being interpreted in Neopythagorean fashion. In order to check this derivation, we should look at the three stages of it in detail. These stages are the Neopythagoreanism of Moderatus, the theories of Eudorus, and those of Speusippus and the Old Academy in general. [p. 389] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RfxQJVrvnsxJSva |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1058","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1058,"authors_free":[{"id":1607,"entry_id":1058,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":303,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rist, John M.","free_first_name":"John M.","free_last_name":"Rist","norm_person":{"id":303,"first_name":"John M.","last_name":"Rist","full_name":"Rist, John M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137060440","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Neoplatonic One and Plato\u2019s Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"The Neoplatonic One and Plato\u2019s Parmenides"},"abstract":"As long ago as 1928 Professor E. R. Dodds' demonstrated the \r\ndependence of the One of Plotinus on an interpretation of the \r\nfirst hypothesis of the Parmenides. His demonstration has been \r\nuniversally accepted. But Dodds not only showed the depen- \r\ndence of Plotinus on the Parmenides but also offered an account \r\nof the history of the doctrine of the One between the late fourth \r\ncentury B.C. and the third century A.D. His view is that the first \r\nthree hypotheses of the Parmenides were already treated in what \r\nwe should call a Neoplatonic fashion by Moderatus, a Neo- \r\npythagorean of the second half of the first century A.D.; further, \r\nthat Moderatus was not the originator of this interpretation, \r\nwhose origins can in fact be traced back through Eudorus \r\n(ca. 25 B.C.) and the Neopythagoreans of his day to the Old \r\nAcademy. Though Dodds is somewhat unclear at this point,2 \r\nhe seems to suggest that already before the time of Eudorus the \r\nParmenides was being interpreted in Neopythagorean fashion. \r\nIn order to check this derivation, we should look at the three \r\nstages of it in detail. These stages are the Neopythagoreanism \r\nof Moderatus, the theories of Eudorus, and those of Speusippus \r\nand the Old Academy in general. [p. 389]","btype":3,"date":"1962","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RfxQJVrvnsxJSva","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":303,"full_name":"Rist, John M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1058,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association","volume":"93","issue":"","pages":"389\u2013401"}},"sort":[1962]}
| Title | Empedocles, fr. 35. 12-15 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1962 |
| Journal | The Classical Review |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 109-111 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Arundel, Maureen Rosemary |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This text discusses the interpretation and translation of a fragment of Theophrastus and Plutarch. The word "zôros" is of particular concern, as there is difficulty in determining its meaning, with some suggesting it means "mixed" while others argue it means "undiluted." The author suggests that the reading of the Empedocles line should be restored to "zôra" meaning "undiluted" and that the modern interpretation of "mixed" is unjustifiable. The text also examines the use of "zôra" in Philumenus' work and argues that there is no occurrence in which it means "mixed." [whole text] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0KVfT1jwCVuVr5m |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1262","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1262,"authors_free":[{"id":1848,"entry_id":1262,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":36,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Arundel, Maureen Rosemary","free_first_name":"Maureen Rosemary","free_last_name":"Arundel","norm_person":{"id":36,"first_name":"Maureen Rosemary","last_name":"Arundel","full_name":"Arundel, Maureen Rosemary","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles, fr. 35. 12-15","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles, fr. 35. 12-15"},"abstract":"This text discusses the interpretation and translation of a fragment of Theophrastus and Plutarch. The word \"z\u00f4ros\" is of particular concern, as there is difficulty in determining its meaning, with some suggesting it means \"mixed\" while others argue it means \"undiluted.\" The author suggests that the reading of the Empedocles line should be restored to \"z\u00f4ra\" meaning \"undiluted\" and that the modern interpretation of \"mixed\" is unjustifiable. The text also examines the use of \"z\u00f4ra\" in Philumenus' work and argues that there is no occurrence in which it means \"mixed.\" [whole text]","btype":3,"date":"1962","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0KVfT1jwCVuVr5m","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":36,"full_name":"Arundel, Maureen Rosemary","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1262,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"12","issue":"2","pages":"109-111"}},"sort":[1962]}
| Title | The Framework of Greek Cosmology |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1961 |
| Journal | The Review of Metaphysics |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 676-684 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Robinson, John |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The treatises which form the Hippocratic Corpus are not the work of a single individual, and there is abundant evidence that they were itten over a period of at least two hundred years. It is, there ore, essential, in attempting to reconstruct the scientific world view of the early period, that we rely so far as possible on treatises belonging to this period. Unfortunately, in the present state of Hippocratic studies, it is impossible to date these works with any exactitude. On the other hand, certain of them belong pretty clearly to the fifth century; and it seems fairly well established that the view of the constitution of man which most of them assume dates from the time of Alcmaeon, who flourished around the turn of the century. Since this view is based upon an analogy between microcosm and macrocosm, the processes involved in sickness and health reflect on a small scale the greater processes which constitute the life of the cosmos as a whole; thus, indirectly, these treatises illuminate in striking ways aspects of the larger world-view implicit in the fragments of the early cosmologists, but obscured by the fewness of these fragments and the imperfect state in which they have been preserved. In the present study they are used to illuminate just such obscurities. [pp. 676 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zGcRmbkt0tSeZdr |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"857","_score":null,"_source":{"id":857,"authors_free":[{"id":1261,"entry_id":857,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":304,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Robinson, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":304,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Robinson","full_name":"Robinson, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Framework of Greek Cosmology","main_title":{"title":"The Framework of Greek Cosmology"},"abstract":"The treatises which form the Hippocratic Corpus are not the work of \r\na single individual, and there is abundant evidence that they were itten over a period of at least two hundred years. It is, there ore, essential, in attempting to reconstruct the scientific world \r\nview of the early period, that we rely so far as possible on treatises \r\nbelonging to this period. Unfortunately, in the present state of \r\nHippocratic studies, it is impossible to date these works with any \r\nexactitude. On the other hand, certain of them belong pretty \r\nclearly to the fifth century; and it seems fairly well established that \r\nthe view of the constitution of man which most of them assume \r\ndates from the time of Alcmaeon, who flourished around the turn \r\nof the century. Since this view is based upon an analogy between \r\nmicrocosm and macrocosm, the processes involved in sickness and \r\nhealth reflect on a small scale the greater processes which constitute \r\nthe life of the cosmos as a whole; thus, indirectly, these treatises \r\nilluminate in striking ways aspects of the larger world-view \r\nimplicit in the fragments of the early cosmologists, but obscured \r\nby the fewness of these fragments and the imperfect state in which \r\nthey have been preserved. In the present study they are used to \r\nilluminate just such obscurities. [pp. 676 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1961","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zGcRmbkt0tSeZdr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":304,"full_name":"Robinson, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":857,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Review of Metaphysics","volume":"14","issue":"4","pages":"676-684"}},"sort":[1961]}
| Title | A Note on Fragment 12 of Anaxagoras |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1960 |
| Journal | The Classical Review |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 4-5 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wasserstein, Abraham |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EbLIQIMvekyZoAZ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"444","_score":null,"_source":{"id":444,"authors_free":[{"id":596,"entry_id":444,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":356,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wasserstein, Abraham","free_first_name":"Abraham","free_last_name":"Wasserstein","norm_person":{"id":356,"first_name":"Abraham","last_name":"Wasserstein","full_name":"Wasserstein, Abraham","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119380102","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A Note on Fragment 12 of Anaxagoras","main_title":{"title":"A Note on Fragment 12 of Anaxagoras"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1960","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EbLIQIMvekyZoAZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":356,"full_name":"Wasserstein, Abraham","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":444,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"10","issue":"1","pages":"4-5"}},"sort":[1960]}
| Title | Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being? |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1958 |
| Journal | The American Journal of Philology |
| Volume | 79 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 61-65 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Booth, N. B. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| G. Vlastos, in Gnomon, XXV (1953), pp. 34-5, claims that he (and J. E. Raven before him) have laid to rest "the alleged corporeality of Melissean Being in the grave which contains Burnet's famous dogma of Eleatic materialism." There is a surprising finality about this claim of Vlastos', and it behooves his critics to consider whether such finality is justified. I think myself that, while Vlastos' arguments are forceful and well ex- pressed, they still fail to carry absolute conviction; and in this brief discussion I shall try to set out the reasons for my scepticism. [p. 61] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0OSvPVeLSMxRqoo |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"769","_score":null,"_source":{"id":769,"authors_free":[{"id":1133,"entry_id":769,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":10,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Booth, N. B.","free_first_name":"N. B.","free_last_name":"Booth","norm_person":{"id":10,"first_name":"N. B.","last_name":"Booth","full_name":"Booth, N. B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?","main_title":{"title":"Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?"},"abstract":"G. Vlastos, in Gnomon, XXV (1953), pp. 34-5, claims that \r\nhe (and J. E. Raven before him) have laid to rest \"the alleged \r\ncorporeality of Melissean Being in the grave which contains \r\nBurnet's famous dogma of Eleatic materialism.\" There is a \r\nsurprising finality about this claim of Vlastos', and it behooves \r\nhis critics to consider whether such finality is justified. I think \r\nmyself that, while Vlastos' arguments are forceful and well ex- \r\npressed, they still fail to carry absolute conviction; and in this \r\nbrief discussion I shall try to set out the reasons for my \r\nscepticism. [p. 61]","btype":3,"date":"1958","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0OSvPVeLSMxRqoo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":10,"full_name":"Booth, N. B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":769,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The American Journal of Philology","volume":"79","issue":"1","pages":"61-65"}},"sort":[1958]}
| Title | Der Platoniker Ptolemaios |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1957 |
| Journal | Hermes |
| Volume | 85 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 314-325 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dihle, Albrecht |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In den philosophischen Texten der späten Kaiserzeit stößt man zuweilen auf den Namen Ptolemaios, ohne daß dabei an einen Lagiden oder an den berühmten Astronomen zu denken wäre. Wie jene Zitate auf einen oder mehrere Träger dieses Namens zu verteilen seien, war eine einst viel diskutierte Frage, die dann allerdings im Anschluß an eine Vermutung W. v. Christs durch das Buch von A. Chatzis (Der Philosoph und Grammatiker Ptolemaios Chennos I = Stud. z Gesch. u. Kult. d. Altert. VII 2, Paderborn 1914) endgültig dahin beantwortet schien, es handele sich bei all diesen Ptolemaioi immer wieder um Ptolemaios Chennos aus der Zeit um 100 n. Chr., der uns durch den Auszug des Photios aus seiner καινὴ ἱστορία (cod. 190) recht gut bekannt ist. Diese Frage soll hier einer erneuten Prüfung unterzogen werden. [introduction, p. 314] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vFgmnYtr8RbZ3BD |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1305","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1305,"authors_free":[{"id":1929,"entry_id":1305,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":93,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dihle, Albrecht","free_first_name":"Albrecht","free_last_name":"Dihle","norm_person":{"id":93,"first_name":"Albrecht","last_name":"Dihle","full_name":"Dihle, Albrecht","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119194503","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der Platoniker Ptolemaios","main_title":{"title":"Der Platoniker Ptolemaios"},"abstract":"In den philosophischen Texten der sp\u00e4ten Kaiserzeit st\u00f6\u00dft man zuweilen auf den Namen Ptolemaios, ohne da\u00df dabei an einen Lagiden oder an den ber\u00fchmten Astronomen zu denken w\u00e4re. Wie jene Zitate auf einen oder mehrere Tr\u00e4ger dieses Namens zu verteilen seien, war eine einst viel diskutierte Frage, die dann allerdings im Anschlu\u00df an eine Vermutung W. v. Christs durch das Buch von A. Chatzis (Der Philosoph und Grammatiker Ptolemaios Chennos I = Stud. z Gesch. u. Kult. d. Altert. VII 2, Paderborn 1914) endg\u00fcltig dahin beantwortet schien, es handele sich bei all diesen Ptolemaioi immer wieder um Ptolemaios Chennos aus der Zeit um 100 n. Chr., der uns durch den Auszug des Photios aus seiner \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u1f77\u03b1 (cod. 190) recht gut bekannt ist. Diese Frage soll hier einer erneuten Pr\u00fcfung unterzogen werden. [introduction, p. 314]","btype":3,"date":"1957","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vFgmnYtr8RbZ3BD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":93,"full_name":"Dihle, Albrecht","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1305,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"85","issue":"3","pages":"314-325"}},"sort":[1957]}
| Title | Boethius and Andronicus of Rhodes |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1957 |
| Journal | Vigiliae Christianae |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 179-185 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Shiel, James |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| G. Pfligersdorffer has recently described the attitude of the an- cient editor, Andronicus of Rhodes, towards the final notes in Aristotle's Categories on opposites, simultaneity, priority, motion and possession-what the medievals called the postpraedicamenta. [...] The text I have proposed will still support Pfligersdorffer's argument (a) noted above-but none of the others. [p. 179, p. 185] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EaxVeTjyAtZsVgR |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"853","_score":null,"_source":{"id":853,"authors_free":[{"id":1257,"entry_id":853,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":315,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Shiel, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Shiel","norm_person":{"id":315,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Shiel","full_name":"Shiel, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131572202","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Boethius and Andronicus of Rhodes","main_title":{"title":"Boethius and Andronicus of Rhodes"},"abstract":"G. Pfligersdorffer has recently described the attitude of the an- \r\ncient editor, Andronicus of Rhodes, towards the final notes in \r\nAristotle's Categories on opposites, simultaneity, priority, motion \r\nand possession-what the medievals called the postpraedicamenta. [...] The text I have proposed will still support Pfligersdorffer's \r\nargument (a) noted above-but none of the others. [p. 179, p. 185]","btype":3,"date":"1957","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EaxVeTjyAtZsVgR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":315,"full_name":"Shiel, James","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":853,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Vigiliae Christianae","volume":"11","issue":"3","pages":"179-185"}},"sort":[1957]}
| Title | Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks upon Parmenides? |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1957 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-9 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Booth, N.B. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This article by N. B. Booth examines whether Zeno's arguments were a response to criticisms of Parmenides's principle „the One“. Despite evidence that Zeno was concerned with defending Parmenides's „One“, his arguments about plurality seem to refute the "ones" of a plurality. One possible explanation is that Zeno's arguments were used to counter criticisms of Parmenides's „One“ before he produced them. Plato's Parmenides includes a passage in which "Zeno" apologizes for his book on plurality, which has been interpreted as an answer to criticisms of Parmenides's theory, but Booth notes that Plato's characters are idealized and it is not certain that Zeno's arguments were a response to attacks. Booth looks at the arguments themselves for evidence and suggests that if some of Zeno's arguments against plural "ones" were valid against Parmenides's „One“, it would be fair to infer that they were used by hostile critics and Zeno was throwing them back in their faces. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Z24XRGSFJxejYPK |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1127","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1127,"authors_free":[{"id":1702,"entry_id":1127,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":10,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Booth, N.B.","free_first_name":"N.B.","free_last_name":"Booth","norm_person":{"id":10,"first_name":"N. B.","last_name":"Booth","full_name":"Booth, N. B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks upon Parmenides?","main_title":{"title":"Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks upon Parmenides?"},"abstract":"This article by N. B. Booth examines whether Zeno's arguments were a response to criticisms of Parmenides's principle \u201ethe One\u201c. Despite evidence that Zeno was concerned with defending Parmenides's \u201eOne\u201c, his arguments about plurality seem to refute the \"ones\" of a plurality. One possible explanation is that Zeno's arguments were used to counter criticisms of Parmenides's \u201eOne\u201c before he produced them. Plato's Parmenides includes a passage in which \"Zeno\" apologizes for his book on plurality, which has been interpreted as an answer to criticisms of Parmenides's theory, but Booth notes that Plato's characters are idealized and it is not certain that Zeno's arguments were a response to attacks. Booth looks at the arguments themselves for evidence and suggests that if some of Zeno's arguments against plural \"ones\" were valid against Parmenides's \u201eOne\u201c, it would be fair to infer that they were used by hostile critics and Zeno was throwing them back in their faces. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1957","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Z24XRGSFJxejYPK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":10,"full_name":"Booth, N. B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1127,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"2","issue":"1","pages":"1-9"}},"sort":[1957]}
| Title | Heraklit zitiert Anaximander |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1956 |
| Journal | Hermes |
| Volume | 84 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 382-384 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bröcker, Walter |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Note on a quote of Heraclitus |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/toXxGP6G9zJTv6B |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1069","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1069,"authors_free":[{"id":1623,"entry_id":1069,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":19,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Br\u00f6cker, Walter ","free_first_name":"Walter","free_last_name":"Br\u00f6cker","norm_person":{"id":19,"first_name":"Walter ","last_name":"Br\u00f6cker","full_name":"Br\u00f6cker, Walter ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116559500","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Heraklit zitiert Anaximander","main_title":{"title":"Heraklit zitiert Anaximander"},"abstract":"Note on a quote of Heraclitus","btype":3,"date":"1956","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/toXxGP6G9zJTv6B","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":19,"full_name":"Br\u00f6cker, Walter ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1069,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"84","issue":"3","pages":"382-384"}},"sort":["Heraklit zitiert Anaximander"]}
| Title | John Philoponus as a Source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1969 |
| Journal | Journal of the American Oriental Society |
| Volume | 89 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 357-391 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Davidson, Herbert A. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Information from a number of sources has established that John Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem, a refutation of Aristotle's proofs of the eternity of the world, was at least partially available to the Arabic philosophers in the Middle Ages. The present article shows that the Arabic Jewish writer Sacadia used a set of proofs of creation ultimately deriving from Philoponus. With the aid of this result the following further conclusions are also drawn: Kindi too used a set of proofs of creation ultimately deriving from Philoponus; a variety of medieval arguments from the impossibility of an infinite are to be traced to Philoponus; the standard Kalām proof of creation, the proof from "accidents," originated as a reformulation of one of Philoponus' arguments. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/S0gw5n3A3GJL79C |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1295","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1295,"authors_free":[{"id":1888,"entry_id":1295,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":84,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Davidson, Herbert A.","free_first_name":"Herbert A.","free_last_name":"Davidson","norm_person":{"id":84,"first_name":"Herbert A.","last_name":"Davidson","full_name":"Davidson, Herbert A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/15814743X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus as a Source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus as a Source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation"},"abstract":"Information from a number of sources has established that John Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem, a refutation of Aristotle's proofs of the eternity of the world, was at least partially available to the Arabic philosophers in the Middle Ages. The present article shows that the Arabic Jewish writer Sacadia used a set of proofs of creation ultimately deriving from Philoponus. With the aid of this result the following further conclusions are also drawn: Kindi too used a set of proofs of creation ultimately deriving from Philoponus; a variety of medieval arguments from the impossibility of an infinite are to be traced to Philoponus; the standard Kal\u0101m proof of creation, the proof from \"accidents,\" originated as a reformulation of one of Philoponus' arguments. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S0gw5n3A3GJL79C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":84,"full_name":"Davidson, Herbert A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1295,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the American Oriental Society","volume":"89","issue":"2","pages":"357-391"}},"sort":["John Philoponus as a Source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation"]}
| Title | Le chrétien Jean Philopon et la survivance de l'École d'Alexandrie au VIe siècle |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1954 |
| Journal | Revue des Études Grecques |
| Volume | 67 |
| Issue | 316-318 |
| Pages | 396-410 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Saffrey, Henri Dominique |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Ammonias, bien que païen et élève de Proclus, avait su, dès la fin du Ve siècle, faire à l'Église les concessionsnécessaires pour que fût toléré son enseignement officiel à Alexandrie. Mais il convient de reconnaître le rôle capital quedut jouer, quelque vingt à trente ans plus tard, un de ses élèves chrétiens, Jean le grammairien, philoponos dans l'Églised'Alexandrie : il couvrit son maître, et en éditant sous son nom à lui ses rédactions des commentaires à Aristote exposésoralement par Ammonius, et en publiant, dans l'année critique 529, son propre ouvrage De aeternitate mundi ContraProclum, qui détachait opportunément de l'École d'Athènes l'École d'Alexandrie. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/C0QcH7vjb2PYNkY |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"401","_score":null,"_source":{"id":401,"authors_free":[{"id":536,"entry_id":401,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","free_first_name":"Henri Dominique","free_last_name":"Saffrey","norm_person":{"id":228,"first_name":"Henri Dominique","last_name":"Saffrey","full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130160059","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le chr\u00e9tien Jean Philopon et la survivance de l'\u00c9cole d'Alexandrie au VIe si\u00e8cle","main_title":{"title":"Le chr\u00e9tien Jean Philopon et la survivance de l'\u00c9cole d'Alexandrie au VIe si\u00e8cle"},"abstract":"Ammonias, bien que pa\u00efen et \u00e9l\u00e8ve de Proclus, avait su, d\u00e8s la fin du Ve si\u00e8cle, faire \u00e0 l'\u00c9glise les concessionsn\u00e9cessaires pour que f\u00fbt tol\u00e9r\u00e9 son enseignement officiel \u00e0 Alexandrie. Mais il convient de reconna\u00eetre le r\u00f4le capital quedut jouer, quelque vingt \u00e0 trente ans plus tard, un de ses \u00e9l\u00e8ves chr\u00e9tiens, Jean le grammairien, philoponos dans l'\u00c9glised'Alexandrie : il couvrit son ma\u00eetre, et en \u00e9ditant sous son nom \u00e0 lui ses r\u00e9dactions des commentaires \u00e0 Aristote expos\u00e9soralement par Ammonius, et en publiant, dans l'ann\u00e9e critique 529, son propre ouvrage De aeternitate mundi ContraProclum, qui d\u00e9tachait opportun\u00e9ment de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes l'\u00c9cole d'Alexandrie. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1954","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/C0QcH7vjb2PYNkY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":401,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques","volume":"67","issue":"316-318","pages":"396-410"}},"sort":["Le chr\u00e9tien Jean Philopon et la survivance de l'\u00c9cole d'Alexandrie au VIe si\u00e8cle"]}
| Title | Les convictions religieuses de Jean Philopon et la date de son Commentaire aux «Météorologiques» |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1953 |
| Journal | Bulletin de la classe des lettres, sciences morales et politiques de l'Académie Royale de Belgique |
| Volume | 5e Série, Tome 39 |
| Pages | 299–357 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Evrard, Étienne |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Philopon était probablement un chrétien de naissance. Rien en tout cas n’indique qu'il ait jamais été païen. Dès le début de son activité littéraire, il manifeste son christianisme en interprétant Aristote d’une manière favorable à l’immortalité de l'âme humaine et en le critiquant à propos de la création du monde et de l’éternité du mouvement. Il fut peut-être séduit un instant par les idées d’Origène, mais les abandonna bientôt. La fermeture de l’école d’Athènes a sans doute produit sur son esprit une assez forte impression. Il est remarquable en tout cas que son Contre Proclus est l’exact contemporain de cet événement. Peut-être la mesure de Justinien fut-elle difficilement admise dans les cercles philosophiques d'Alexandrie, où païens et chrétiens semblent avoir fait un effort pour harmoniser leurs points de vue. Philopon aurait alors voulu montrer qu’elle atteignait les disciples d’un philosophe dont l’enseignement était fort criticable et qui n’avait consenti aucune concession au christianisme. C’est peut-être pour la même raison qu’un peu après, dans son Commentaire aux Météorologiques, il attaqua à plusieurs reprises Damascius, qui dirigeait l’école d'Athènes au moment de sa fermeture. A ce moment encore, il prit apparemment une conscience plus nette des contradictions entre les doctrines des païen’s et sa religion. C’est en effet dans le Contre Proclus qu’apparaît pour la première fois la critique de la cinquième essence. Un ouvrage postérieur que nous ne possédons plus y ajoutait une réfutation de la théorie du mouvement surnaturel du feu. On peut penser que Philopon craignait dans ces doctrines une certaine divinisation du ciel dans laquelle il voyait une atteinte à la majesté de Dieu. Le Commentaire aux Météorologiques, composé après 529, révèle une accentuation de cette attitude. On y voit en plus apparaître la critique de l’astrologie. Enfin le Contre Aristote constitue comme une somme des griefs de Philopon contre le système péripatéticien. Dans le De Opificio mundi, postérieur au Contre Aristote et écrit après 557, la philosophie n’apparaît plus qu’indirectement et cède la place à la théologie et à l’exégèse biblique.Seule une étude exhaustive des œuvres de Philopon révélerait le degré d'exactitude de cette reconstitution provisoire. Celle-ci me semble du moins respecter plus complètement que celle de Gudeman les indications sur lesquelles j’ai attiré l’attention. Elle permet en outre de mieux comprendre les répercussions des événements de la première moitié du VIe siècle sur l'esprit de Philopon. [conclusion, p. 356-357] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vWLkdYndnRLFCbW |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"553","_score":null,"_source":{"id":553,"authors_free":[{"id":782,"entry_id":553,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":92,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Evrard, \u00c9tienne ","free_first_name":"\u00c9tienne ","free_last_name":"Evrard","norm_person":{"id":92,"first_name":"\u00c9tienne ","last_name":"Evrard","full_name":"Evrard, \u00c9tienne ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118945750","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les convictions religieuses de Jean Philopon et la date de son Commentaire aux \u00abM\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques\u00bb","main_title":{"title":"Les convictions religieuses de Jean Philopon et la date de son Commentaire aux \u00abM\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques\u00bb"},"abstract":"Philopon \u00e9tait probablement un chr\u00e9tien de naissance. Rien en tout cas n\u2019indique qu'il ait jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 pa\u00efen. D\u00e8s le d\u00e9but de son activit\u00e9 litt\u00e9raire, il manifeste son christianisme en interpr\u00e9tant Aristote d\u2019une mani\u00e8re favorable \u00e0 l\u2019immortalit\u00e9 de l'\u00e2me humaine et en le \r\ncritiquant \u00e0 propos de la cr\u00e9ation du monde et de l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du mouvement. Il fut peut-\u00eatre s\u00e9duit un instant par les id\u00e9es d\u2019Orig\u00e8ne, mais les abandonna bient\u00f4t. La fermeture de l\u2019\u00e9cole \r\nd\u2019Ath\u00e8nes a sans doute produit sur son esprit une assez forte impression. Il est remarquable en tout cas que son Contre Proclus est l\u2019exact contemporain de cet \u00e9v\u00e9nement. Peut-\u00eatre la mesure de Justinien fut-elle difficilement admise dans les cercles philoso\u00adphiques d'Alexandrie, o\u00f9 pa\u00efens et chr\u00e9tiens semblent avoir \r\nfait un effort pour harmoniser leurs points de vue. Philopon aurait alors voulu montrer qu\u2019elle atteignait les disciples d\u2019un philosophe dont l\u2019enseignement \u00e9tait fort criticable et qui n\u2019avait \r\nconsenti aucune concession au christianisme. C\u2019est peut-\u00eatre pour la m\u00eame raison qu\u2019un peu apr\u00e8s, dans son Commentaire aux M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques, il attaqua \u00e0 plusieurs reprises Damascius, qui dirigeait l\u2019\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes au moment de sa fermeture. A ce moment encore, il prit apparemment une conscience plus nette \r\ndes contradictions entre les doctrines des pa\u00efen\u2019s et sa religion. C\u2019est en effet dans le Contre Proclus qu\u2019appara\u00eet pour la premi\u00e8re fois la critique de la cinqui\u00e8me essence. Un ouvrage post\u00e9rieur \r\nque nous ne poss\u00e9dons plus y ajoutait une r\u00e9futation de la th\u00e9orie du mouvement surnaturel du feu. On peut penser que Philopon craignait dans ces doctrines une certaine divinisation du ciel dans laquelle il voyait une atteinte \u00e0 la majest\u00e9 de Dieu. Le Com\u00admentaire aux M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques, compos\u00e9 apr\u00e8s 529, r\u00e9v\u00e8le une accentuation de cette attitude. On y voit en plus appara\u00eetre la \r\ncritique de l\u2019astrologie. Enfin le Contre Aristote constitue comme une somme des griefs de Philopon contre le syst\u00e8me p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien. Dans le De Opificio mundi, post\u00e9rieur au Contre Aristote \r\net \u00e9crit apr\u00e8s 557, la philosophie n\u2019appara\u00eet plus qu\u2019indirectement et c\u00e8de la place \u00e0 la th\u00e9ologie et \u00e0 l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se biblique.Seule une \u00e9tude exhaustive des \u0153uvres de Philopon r\u00e9v\u00e9lerait le degr\u00e9 d'exactitude de cette reconstitution provisoire. Celle-ci me semble du moins respecter plus compl\u00e8tement que celle de Gudeman les indications sur lesquelles j\u2019ai attir\u00e9 l\u2019attention. \r\nElle permet en outre de mieux comprendre les r\u00e9percussions des \u00e9v\u00e9nements de la premi\u00e8re moiti\u00e9 du VIe si\u00e8cle sur l'esprit \r\nde Philopon. [conclusion, p. 356-357]","btype":3,"date":"1953","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vWLkdYndnRLFCbW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":92,"full_name":"Evrard, \u00c9tienne ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":553,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin de la classe des lettres, sciences morales et politiques de l'Acad\u00e9mie Royale de Belgique","volume":"5e S\u00e9rie, Tome 39","issue":"","pages":"299\u2013357"}},"sort":["Les convictions religieuses de Jean Philopon et la date de son Commentaire aux \u00abM\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques\u00bb"]}
| Title | Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1965 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 109-148 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Solmsen, Friedrich |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In Heracitus and Parmenides assumptions which form the basis of on the contrary it may be said that difficulties which were less apparent as long as the discussion confined itself to individual fragments or groups of fragments become more visible when the entire scheme is worked out and presented. Perhaps the wisest course would be to admit ignorance on crucial points. If I, nevertheless, prefer to offer an alternative reconstruction - in essential aspects a revival of von Arnim's3 - my hope is that, whether right or wrong, it will serve a good purpose if it shows that opinions currently accepted are not firmly grounded in the evidence at our disposal. [pp. 109 f.] our interpretation are subject to frequent reexaminations and revisions. With Empedocles matters are different. Here large hypotheses have for a long time remained unchallenged and are now near the point of hardening into dogmas. In particular the recon- struction of a dual cosmogony in his "cycle", originally a theory which had to contend with others, is now often regarded as established, treated as though it were a fact, and used as premise for further inferences. The only full scale interpretation of the evidence which backs up this theory is Ettore Bignone's Empedoclel; yet whatever the merits of this book, it can hardly be denied that in the fifty years since its publication we have learned many new lessons regarding the relative value of testimonies and fragments, the trustworthiness of Aristotle's reports on his precursors, and other questions of vital bearing on the reconstruction of a Presocratic system. A recent text book which seeks to fit the material into the framework of two cos- mogonies does not in my opinion succeed in strengthening this position |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mpJ8Nqzof1sydeV |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"846","_score":null,"_source":{"id":846,"authors_free":[{"id":1250,"entry_id":846,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":316,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","free_first_name":"Friedrich","free_last_name":"Solmsen","norm_person":{"id":316,"first_name":"Friedrich","last_name":"Solmsen","full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754641","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology","main_title":{"title":"Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology"},"abstract":"In Heracitus and Parmenides assumptions which form the basis of on the contrary it may be said that difficulties which were less apparent \r\nas long as the discussion confined itself to individual fragments or \r\ngroups of fragments become more visible when the entire scheme is \r\nworked out and presented. Perhaps the wisest course would be to \r\nadmit ignorance on crucial points. If I, nevertheless, prefer to offer an \r\nalternative reconstruction - in essential aspects a revival of von \r\nArnim's3 - my hope is that, whether right or wrong, it will serve a \r\ngood purpose if it shows that opinions currently accepted are not firmly \r\ngrounded in the evidence at our disposal. [pp. 109 f.]\r\nour interpretation are subject to frequent reexaminations and \r\nrevisions. With Empedocles matters are different. Here large \r\nhypotheses have for a long time remained unchallenged and are now \r\nnear the point of hardening into dogmas. In particular the recon- \r\nstruction of a dual cosmogony in his \"cycle\", originally a theory which \r\nhad to contend with others, is now often regarded as established, \r\ntreated as though it were a fact, and used as premise for further \r\ninferences. The only full scale interpretation of the evidence which \r\nbacks up this theory is Ettore Bignone's Empedoclel; yet whatever the \r\nmerits of this book, it can hardly be denied that in the fifty years since \r\nits publication we have learned many new lessons regarding the \r\nrelative value of testimonies and fragments, the trustworthiness of \r\nAristotle's reports on his precursors, and other questions of vital \r\nbearing on the reconstruction of a Presocratic system. A recent text \r\nbook which seeks to fit the material into the framework of two cos- \r\nmogonies does not in my opinion succeed in strengthening this position","btype":3,"date":"1965","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mpJ8Nqzof1sydeV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":316,"full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":846,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"10","issue":"2","pages":"109-148"}},"sort":["Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology"]}
| Title | Notes sur la tradition indirecte du 'de Caelo' d'Aristote |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1954 |
| Journal | Hermes |
| Volume | 82 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 145-182 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Moraux, Paul |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This text discusses the limited knowledge of the history of Aristotle's text, De caelo, due to the large number of Greek manuscripts and translations in various languages. The author focuses on the indirect tradition of the text, which includes summaries, paraphrases, and extracts by ancient commentators such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Proclus, Philoponus, and Simplicius. The author compares this indirect tradition to the direct tradition and notes the difficulties in reconstructing the original text due to the multiple manuscript variants resulting from the philological activities of ancient commentators and scribes. The author's aim is to offer a modest contribution to the study of the text's transmission history. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6Fkmqyu6w6bNEsQ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1208","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1208,"authors_free":[{"id":1789,"entry_id":1208,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":137,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Moraux, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Moraux","norm_person":{"id":137,"first_name":"Paul ","last_name":"Moraux","full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117755591","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Notes sur la tradition indirecte du 'de Caelo' d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Notes sur la tradition indirecte du 'de Caelo' d'Aristote"},"abstract":"This text discusses the limited knowledge of the history of Aristotle's text, De caelo, due to the large number of Greek manuscripts and translations in various languages. The author focuses on the indirect tradition of the text, which includes summaries, paraphrases, and extracts by ancient commentators such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Proclus, Philoponus, and Simplicius. The author compares this indirect tradition to the direct tradition and notes the difficulties in reconstructing the original text due to the multiple manuscript variants resulting from the philological activities of ancient commentators and scribes. The author's aim is to offer a modest contribution to the study of the text's transmission history. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1954","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6Fkmqyu6w6bNEsQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1208,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"82","issue":"2","pages":"145-182"}},"sort":["Notes sur la tradition indirecte du 'de Caelo' d'Aristote"]}
| Title | Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1967 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-5 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bicknell, Peter J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
It is commonly maintained that Melissus was the major forerunner of atomism. This has been argued on a number of grounds, one of these being that Leucippus reacted to a Melissean rather than a Parmenidean refutation of locomotion. In the following short paper I shall challenge this view and point out that not only is one other argument for Melissus' influence on atomism insecure, but that Theo- phrastus, our most important witness, unequivocally states that Leucippus opposed a pre-Melissean eleaticism. [p. 1] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HVrwO25mQS4JsxM |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"772","_score":null,"_source":{"id":772,"authors_free":[{"id":1136,"entry_id":772,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":399,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Bicknell","norm_person":{"id":399,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Bicknell","full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162157143","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication"},"abstract":"It is commonly maintained that Melissus was the major forerunner \r\nof atomism. This has been argued on a number of grounds, one of \r\nthese being that Leucippus reacted to a Melissean rather than a \r\nParmenidean refutation of locomotion. In the following short paper I \r\nshall challenge this view and point out that not only is one other \r\nargument for Melissus' influence on atomism insecure, but that Theo- \r\nphrastus, our most important witness, unequivocally states that \r\nLeucippus opposed a pre-Melissean eleaticism. [p. 1]","btype":3,"date":"1967","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HVrwO25mQS4JsxM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":399,"full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":772,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"12","issue":"1","pages":"1-5"}},"sort":["Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication"]}
| Title | Parmenides, B 8. 4 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1970 |
| Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 32-34 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wilson, John Richard |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The text of Parmenides 8. 4 is unusually corrupt. [p. 32] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XNwbpdwwJgZDWs5 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"840","_score":null,"_source":{"id":840,"authors_free":[{"id":1244,"entry_id":840,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":363,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilson, John Richard","free_first_name":"John Richard","free_last_name":"Wilson","norm_person":{"id":363,"first_name":"John Richard","last_name":"Wilson","full_name":"Wilson, John Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173000916","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides, B 8. 4","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides, B 8. 4"},"abstract":"The text of Parmenides 8. 4 is unusually corrupt. [p. 32]","btype":3,"date":"1970","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XNwbpdwwJgZDWs5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":363,"full_name":"Wilson, John Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":840,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"20","issue":"1","pages":"32-34"}},"sort":["Parmenides, B 8. 4"]}
| Title | Parmenides, Fragment 10 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1968 |
| Journal | Hermes |
| Volume | 96 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 629-631 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bicknell, Peter J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This text is a critical analysis of the location of two fragments of the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. The author of the text suggests that the two fragments, VS 28 B 10 (Clement, Strom. 5, I38) and VS 28 B 11 (Simplicius, de Caelo 559, 20), are incorrectly placed together in Parmenides' Way of Seeming. The author argues that there is no evidence to suggest that the two fragments were meant to be together, and that they do not fit into the context of Parmenides' work. The author also suggests that VS 28 B 10 may not be Parmenidean at all, and discusses its possible attribution to Empedocles. The text concludes by considering the language and style of the two fragments, and their relationship to Parmenides' other works. [summary of the whole text] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2uPg3j4nE0Tu1v1 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1124","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1124,"authors_free":[{"id":1700,"entry_id":1124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":399,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Bicknell","norm_person":{"id":399,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Bicknell","full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162157143","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides, Fragment 10","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides, Fragment 10"},"abstract":"This text is a critical analysis of the location of two fragments of the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. The author of the text suggests that the two fragments, VS 28 B 10 (Clement, Strom. 5, I38) and VS 28 B 11 (Simplicius, de Caelo 559, 20), are incorrectly placed together in Parmenides' Way of Seeming. The author argues that there is no evidence to suggest that the two fragments were meant to be together, and that they do not fit into the context of Parmenides' work. The author also suggests that VS 28 B 10 may not be Parmenidean at all, and discusses its possible attribution to Empedocles. The text concludes by considering the language and style of the two fragments, and their relationship to Parmenides' other works. [summary of the whole text]","btype":3,"date":"1968","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2uPg3j4nE0Tu1v1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":399,"full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1124,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"96","issue":"4","pages":"629-631"}},"sort":["Parmenides, Fragment 10"]}
| Title | Simplicius’s Proof of Euclid’s Parallels Postulate |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1969 |
| Journal | Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes |
| Volume | 32 |
| Pages | 1-24 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sabra, A. I. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
A commentary by Simplicius on the premisses to Book I of Euclid’s Elements survives in an Arabic translation of which the author and the exact date of execution are unknown. The translation is reproduced by the ninth-century mathematician al-Fadl ibn Hâtim al-Nayrïzï in the course of his own com mentary on the Elements. Of Nayrïzî’s commentary, which is based on the earlier translation of the Elements by al-Hajjâj ibn Yûsuf ibn Matar, we have only one manuscript copy at Leiden and Gerard of Cremona’s Latin trans lation, both of which have been published.1The passages quoted by Nayrïzï, owing to their extensiveness and con secutive order, would strongly lead one to assume that they together make up the whole of Simplicius’s text. In what follows, however, I shall argue that they suffer from at least one important omission : a proof by Simplicius himself of Euclid’s parallels postulate. Since the omission occurs both in the Leiden manuscript and in Gerard’s translation, it cannot simply be an accidental feature of the former. My argument will consist in (i) citing evidence (Document I) to the effect that such a proof was known to some Arabic mathematicians, and (2) producing a hitherto unnoticed text (Document II) which, in the light of the evidence cited, may well be taken to be the missing proof. In addition, I shall show how Simplicius’s proof entered Arabic discussions on parallels, first, by being made subject to criticism (Document I), and then by being incorporated into a new proof which was designed to take that criticism into account (Document III). [p. 1] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yyXlDjNP3t7ipML |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1055","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1055,"authors_free":[{"id":1602,"entry_id":1055,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":396,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sabra, A. I.","free_first_name":"A. I.","free_last_name":"Sabra","norm_person":{"id":396,"first_name":"A. I.","last_name":"Sabra","full_name":"Sabra, A. I.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1023667843","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019s Proof of Euclid\u2019s Parallels Postulate","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019s Proof of Euclid\u2019s Parallels Postulate"},"abstract":"A commentary by Simplicius on the premisses to Book I of Euclid\u2019s Elements \r\nsurvives in an Arabic translation of which the author and the exact date \r\nof execution are unknown. The translation is reproduced by the ninth-century \r\nmathematician al-Fadl ibn H\u00e2tim al-Nayr\u00efz\u00ef in the course of his own com\u00ad\r\nmentary on the Elements. Of Nayr\u00efz\u00ee\u2019s commentary, which is based on the \r\nearlier translation of the Elements by al-Hajj\u00e2j ibn Y\u00fbsuf ibn Matar, we have \r\nonly one manuscript copy at Leiden and Gerard of Cremona\u2019s Latin trans\u00ad\r\nlation, both of which have been published.1The passages quoted by Nayr\u00efz\u00ef, owing to their extensiveness and con\u00ad\r\nsecutive order, would strongly lead one to assume that they together make \r\nup the whole of Simplicius\u2019s text. In what follows, however, I shall argue that \r\nthey suffer from at least one important omission : a proof by Simplicius himself \r\nof Euclid\u2019s parallels postulate. Since the omission occurs both in the Leiden \r\nmanuscript and in Gerard\u2019s translation, it cannot simply be an accidental \r\nfeature of the former. My argument will consist in (i) citing evidence \r\n(Document I) to the effect that such a proof was known to some Arabic \r\nmathematicians, and (2) producing a hitherto unnoticed text (Document \r\nII) which, in the light of the evidence cited, may well be taken to be the \r\nmissing proof. In addition, I shall show how Simplicius\u2019s proof entered Arabic \r\ndiscussions on parallels, first, by being made subject to criticism (Document I), \r\nand then by being incorporated into a new proof which was designed to take \r\nthat criticism into account (Document III). [p. 1]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yyXlDjNP3t7ipML","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":396,"full_name":"Sabra, A. I.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1055,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes","volume":"32","issue":"","pages":"1-24"}},"sort":["Simplicius\u2019s Proof of Euclid\u2019s Parallels Postulate"]}