| Title | The Last Days of the Academy at Athens |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1969 |
| Published in | Proceedings of the Cambridge philological society |
| Pages | 7-29 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Cameron, Alan |
| Editor(s) | Kenney, Edward J. , Dawe, Roger D. |
| Translator(s) |
| Even those who know nothing else o f Justinian know that he closed the Academy at Athens in a . d . 529—the very year that St Benedict had founded the monastery o f Monte Cassino.1 For those who like schematic boundaries between the ancient and medieval worlds, between the pagan past and the Christian future, here is a truly symbolic date.The romantic sequel is hardly less familiar:2 the seven out-of-work Platonists who left Athens for Persia, which under its new King Chosroes they had heard closely resembled the ideal state their master had written of. On their arrival, alas, they discovered that Chosroes, while amiable enough and genuinely interested in philo sophy, was far from being the philosopher-king they had dreamed of. And his subjects were no less corrupt than the Romans. The disillusioned philosophers confessed their disappointment to the king, who not only graciously consented to their immediate return, but even went so far as to make Justinian write into the peace treaty they were just then concluding (September 532) a safe conduct home for all seven and a guarantee that they would be allowed to live out their lives in Roman territory in peace as pagans.This much is well known. But some details are unclear, others unexplored. Several misconceptions prevail. A number of relevant texts have never been properly exploited, some not even considered. What was Justinian’s motive? Did he give the last push to a tottering edifice, or destroy a thriving intellectual centre? Indeed, did he actually succeed in destroying anything at all? What did the philosophers do on their return? [Introduction, p. 7] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FwNaicAoI9i8Wka |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1046","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1046,"authors_free":[{"id":1591,"entry_id":1046,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":20,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cameron, Alan ","free_first_name":"Alan","free_last_name":"Cameron","norm_person":{"id":20,"first_name":"Alan","last_name":"Cameron","full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143568914","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2332,"entry_id":1046,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":21,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kenney, Edward J.","free_first_name":"Edward J.","free_last_name":"Kenney","norm_person":{"id":21,"first_name":"Edward J. ","last_name":"Kenney","full_name":"Kenney, Edward J. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121559602","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2333,"entry_id":1046,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":22,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Dawe, Roger D. ","free_first_name":"Roger D. ","free_last_name":"Dawe","norm_person":{"id":22,"first_name":"Roger D. ","last_name":"Dawe","full_name":"Dawe, Roger D. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131727796","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Last Days of the Academy at Athens","main_title":{"title":"The Last Days of the Academy at Athens"},"abstract":"Even those who know nothing else o f Justinian know that he closed the Academy at \r\nAthens in a . d . 529\u2014the very year that St Benedict had founded the monastery o f \r\nMonte Cassino.1 For those who like schematic boundaries between the ancient and \r\nmedieval worlds, between the pagan past and the Christian future, here is a truly \r\nsymbolic date.The romantic sequel is hardly less familiar:2 the seven out-of-work Platonists who \r\nleft Athens for Persia, which under its new King Chosroes they had heard closely \r\nresembled the ideal state their master had written of. On their arrival, alas, they \r\ndiscovered that Chosroes, while amiable enough and genuinely interested in philo\u00ad\r\nsophy, was far from being the philosopher-king they had dreamed of. And his subjects \r\nwere no less corrupt than the Romans. The disillusioned philosophers confessed their \r\ndisappointment to the king, who not only graciously consented to their immediate \r\nreturn, but even went so far as to make Justinian write into the peace treaty they were \r\njust then concluding (September 532) a safe conduct home for all seven and a guarantee \r\nthat they would be allowed to live out their lives in Roman territory in peace as pagans.This much is well known. But some details are unclear, others unexplored. Several \r\nmisconceptions prevail. A number of relevant texts have never been properly exploited, \r\nsome not even considered. What was Justinian\u2019s motive? Did he give the last push to \r\na tottering edifice, or destroy a thriving intellectual centre? Indeed, did he actually \r\nsucceed in destroying anything at all? What did the philosophers do on their return? [Introduction, p. 7]","btype":2,"date":"1969","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FwNaicAoI9i8Wka","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":20,"full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":21,"full_name":"Kenney, Edward J. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":22,"full_name":"Dawe, Roger D. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1046,"section_of":1601,"pages":"7-29","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1601,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the Cambridge philological society","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kennery_Dawe1969","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1969","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The objects of the Society are the furtherance of classical studies, particularly the discussion and publication of critical researches on the literature and civilization of Greece and Rome. Any classical scholar is eligible for membership. The subscription of a resident in Cambridge is \u00a31 10s. annually, and of a member resident elsewhere, 12s. 6d. annually. Members receive notices of all meetings of the Society and of its publications. Any library may subscribe to the Society and receive copies of its publications. The subscription for libraries is \u00a31 10s. annually.\r\n\r\nThe Society is responsible for two series of publications. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, containing papers read at the Society and other articles by members, appears annually. Contributions intended for the Proceedings should be addressed to Dr. R. D. Dawe, Trinity College, Cambridge. Supplements to the Proceedings, consisting of monographs, appear occasionally, less frequently, and at irregular intervals. This series is designed to accommodate works of intermediate size, i.e., of about 100 pages.\r\n\r\nMembers of the Society are invited to submit proposals for monographs to be published in this series. Proposals should be addressed to Mr. H. J. Easterling, Trinity College, Cambridge. Applications for membership, and all other correspondence relating to the Society, should be addressed to Mr. H. J. Easterling, Trinity College, Cambridge. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2Aa8zUMrmYCuniC","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1601,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"New Series No. 15","volume":"195","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1969]}
| Title | Simplicius |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1967 |
| Published in | The Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
| Pages | 448-449 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Lloyd, Antony C. |
| Editor(s) | Edwards, Paul |
| Translator(s) |
| "SIMPLICIUS, sixth-century Neoplatonist and commen tator on Aristotle, studied in Alexandria under Ammonius and in Athens under Damascius. The School at Athens was closed in 529, and Simplicius withdrew to Persia. When he returned, his paganism barred him from lecturing. His surviving commentaries (on Aristotle’s Categories, Physics, De Caelo, and De Anima) are both more learned and more polemic than would have been suitable for students. His chief importance in the history of philosophy probably lies in his being a source of our knowledge of other ancient philosophers, notably the pre-Socratics.Simplicius takes for granted the metaphysics of Neopla tonism as it had been systematized in the Athenian School of the fifth century. He accepts the usual three hypostases but follows Iamblichus and Damascius in making much of the distinction between each hypostasis and, indeed, be tween each self-subsistent reality as it is undifferentiated (remaining in the One) and as it is differentiated or plural- ized (proceeding). (See, for example, In De Caelo, pp. 93- 94, Heiberg.) It is one of the concepts or devices by which he carries out the task that dominates his work, to reconcile Plato and Aristotle. They appear to disagree, for instance, about motion: a self-moving or an unmoved mover, the motion or immobility of reason, and so on. According to Simplicius, Plato is usually writing of the primary kind of motion, and Aristotle of the secondary, or proceeding, kind. Simplicius’ interpretation of the De Anima is based on that of Iamblichus, which took it as a valid description of the embodied soul, to be supplemented by a metaphysical account of the “separate” intellectIn natural philosophy, Simplicius, like other Neoplaton- ists, is more ready to criticize Aristotle, so that the result is more often a compromise, rather than a reconciliation, with Plato. Aristotelian matter had long been identi fied with Plato's not-being; Simplicius has little to add here to Plotinus and Porphyry. But the problems of space, mo tion, place, and allied concepts had repeatedly been ex amined and were already beginning to suggest relational definitions foreign to Aristotle's physics. In an excursus on the notion of place (In Physica, VoL XI, pp. 601-645, Diels) Simplicius describes some interesting and original views of Darnascius, which he reconciles with Aristotle only by implying, implausibly, that the two are complemen tary, A similar but less scientific treatment of time as a kind of metaphysical cause of the existence of motion and things in motion depends on the distinction already referred to be tween remaining in the One and proceeding; the latter aspect accounts for flowing time, which is the measure of succession,Simplicius also wrote an extant commentary on the Stoic Epictetus' Enchiridion (or handbook of ethics). In moral philosophy the Neoplafconists borrowed much from Stoi cism, and while well expressed, most of the commentary is commonplace for the period. However, it does contain a semipopular presentation of Neoplatonic theology or metaphysics (pp. 95-101, Diibner), and this has been claimed as a survival of Alexandrian Platonism in which (as in the Middle Academy) the highest hypostasis is not the One, but Intellect, The text i% not unambiguous but dubiously supports the claim." [the whole entry] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EDqpmOHmXAWfsyj |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"393","_score":null,"_source":{"id":393,"authors_free":[{"id":516,"entry_id":393,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":465,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","free_first_name":"Antony C.","free_last_name":"Lloyd","norm_person":{"id":465,"first_name":"Antony C.","last_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","full_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1052318118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":517,"entry_id":393,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":237,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Edwards, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Edwards","norm_person":{"id":237,"first_name":"Paul","last_name":"Edwards","full_name":"Edwards, Paul","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"\"SIMPLICIUS, sixth-century Neoplatonist and commen\u00ad\r\ntator on Aristotle, studied in Alexandria under Ammonius \r\nand in Athens under Damascius. The School at Athens was \r\nclosed in 529, and Simplicius withdrew to Persia. When he \r\nreturned, his paganism barred him from lecturing. His \r\nsurviving commentaries (on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, Physics, \r\nDe Caelo, and De Anima) are both more learned and more \r\npolemic than would have been suitable for students. His \r\nchief importance in the history of philosophy probably lies \r\nin his being a source of our knowledge of other ancient \r\nphilosophers, notably the pre-Socratics.Simplicius takes for granted the metaphysics of Neopla\u00ad\r\ntonism as it had been systematized in the Athenian School \r\nof the fifth century. He accepts the usual three hypostases \r\nbut follows Iamblichus and Damascius in making much of \r\nthe distinction between each hypostasis and, indeed, be\u00ad\r\ntween each self-subsistent reality as it is undifferentiated \r\n(remaining in the One) and as it is differentiated or plural- \r\nized (proceeding). (See, for example, In De Caelo, pp. 93- \r\n94, Heiberg.) It is one of the concepts or devices by \r\nwhich he carries out the task that dominates his work, to \r\nreconcile Plato and Aristotle. They appear to disagree, for \r\ninstance, about motion: a self-moving or an unmoved \r\nmover, the motion or immobility of reason, and so on. \r\nAccording to Simplicius, Plato is usually writing of the \r\nprimary kind of motion, and Aristotle of the secondary, or \r\nproceeding, kind. Simplicius\u2019 interpretation of the De \r\nAnima is based on that of Iamblichus, which took it as a \r\nvalid description of the embodied soul, to be supplemented \r\nby a metaphysical account of the \u201cseparate\u201d intellectIn natural philosophy, Simplicius, like other Neoplaton- \r\nists, is more ready to criticize Aristotle, so that the result\r\nis more often a compromise, rather than a reconciliation, \r\nwith Plato. Aristotelian matter had long been identi\u00ad\r\nfied with Plato's not-being; Simplicius has little to add here \r\nto Plotinus and Porphyry. But the problems of space, mo\u00ad\r\ntion, place, and allied concepts had repeatedly been ex\u00ad\r\namined and were already beginning to suggest relational \r\ndefinitions foreign to Aristotle's physics. In an excursus \r\non the notion of place (In Physica, VoL XI, pp. 601-645, \r\nDiels) Simplicius describes some interesting and original \r\nviews of Darnascius, which he reconciles with Aristotle \r\nonly by implying, implausibly, that the two are complemen\u00ad\r\ntary, A similar but less scientific treatment of time as a kind \r\nof metaphysical cause of the existence of motion and things \r\nin motion depends on the distinction already referred to be\u00ad\r\ntween remaining in the One and proceeding; the latter \r\naspect accounts for flowing time, which is the measure of \r\nsuccession,Simplicius also wrote an extant commentary on the Stoic \r\nEpictetus' Enchiridion (or handbook of ethics). In moral \r\nphilosophy the Neoplafconists borrowed much from Stoi\u00ad\r\ncism, and while well expressed, most of the commentary is \r\ncommonplace for the period. However, it does contain a \r\nsemipopular presentation of Neoplatonic theology or \r\nmetaphysics (pp. 95-101, Diibner), and this has been \r\nclaimed as a survival of Alexandrian Platonism in which (as \r\nin the Middle Academy) the highest hypostasis is not the \r\nOne, but Intellect, The text i% not unambiguous but \r\ndubiously supports the claim.\" [the whole entry]","btype":2,"date":"1967","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EDqpmOHmXAWfsyj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":465,"full_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":237,"full_name":"Edwards, Paul","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":393,"section_of":1371,"pages":"448-449","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1371,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Edwards1967","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1967","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The first English-language reference of its kind, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy was hailed as \"a remarkable and unique work\" (Saturday Review) that contained \"the international who's who of philosophy and cultural history\" (Library Journal). [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9TYFlO2oFqfGwvz","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1371,"pubplace":"London, New York","publisher":"Crowell-Collier Publishing Company","series":"","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1967]}
| Title | Aristote, Du ciel. Texte établi et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1965 |
| Published in | Aristote, Du ciel. Texte établi et traduit par Paul Moraux |
| Pages | VII-CXC |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Moraux, Paul |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The introduction discusses the object and structure of Aristotle's treatise De caelo, which presents a challenge for commentators due to its lack of unity. While some ancient commentators saw the study of the world as a whole as the main object of the treatise, others focused on the study of the celestial body and its relation to the sublunar world. The modern understanding of the genesis of Aristotle's works suggests that the treatise may have been formed by combining previously independent monographs. Additionally, Aristotle himself may have attempted to give his works a coherent structure, but did so in a somewhat artificial way. Despite these challenges, the treatise is seen as an important work in the history of philosophy and science. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EzAHeSeExATtJIm |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1375","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1375,"authors_free":[{"id":2085,"entry_id":1375,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction","main_title":{"title":"Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction"},"abstract":"The introduction discusses the object and structure of Aristotle's treatise De caelo, which presents a challenge for commentators due to its lack of unity. While some ancient commentators saw the study of the world as a whole as the main object of the treatise, others focused on the study of the celestial body and its relation to the sublunar world. The modern understanding of the genesis of Aristotle's works suggests that the treatise may have been formed by combining previously independent monographs. Additionally, Aristotle himself may have attempted to give his works a coherent structure, but did so in a somewhat artificial way. Despite these challenges, the treatise is seen as an important work in the history of philosophy and science. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1965","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EzAHeSeExATtJIm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1375,"section_of":1374,"pages":"VII-CXC","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1374,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1965","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/W0FrLs9BKUEyoH3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1374,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1965]}
| Title | Simplicius |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1963 |
| Published in | Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung |
| Pages | 909-915 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zeller, Eduard |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Cilicier | Simplicius, welcher zuerst den Ammonius, dann den Damascius zum Lehrer gehabt hatte. Die Kommentare dieses Philosophen sind das Werk eines großen Fleißes und einer umfassenden Gelehrsamkeit; sie bilden nicht allein für uns eine unschätzbare Fundgrube von Bruchstücken älterer Philosophen und von Nachrichten über dieselben, sondern sie geben auch, trotz der Umdeutungen, von denen kein neuplatonischer Kommentar frei ist, eine sorgfältige und meist verständige Erklärung des Textes. Aber als Philosoph hält sich Simplicius ganz an seine Lehrer, ohne dass er zur Berichtigung oder Fortbildung ihrer Ergebnisse einen erheblichen Versuch machte. Ein unbedingter Bewunderer Platos, ein gläubiger Verehrer der chaldäischen Göttersprache und des Orpheus, hat er zugleich von Aristoteles eine viel zu hohe Meinung, als dass er irgendeinen erheblichen Widerspruch zwischen ihm und Plato zugeben möchte. In der Sache müssen ja beide in allem Wesentlichen übereinstimmen, wenn sie auch in den Worten sich dann und wann widersprechen. Von dieser Voraussetzung aus weiß Simplicius das Einverständnis des Aristoteles mit Plato auch da noch zu entdecken, wo jener gegen diesen in Wahrheit laute Einrede erhoben hat. So soll z. B. in Betreff der allgemeinen Begriffe zwischen beiden vollkommene Übereinstimmung bestehen: Plato, sagt Simplicius, unterscheide zwar die allgemeinen Begriffe von den Einzelwesen, aber er lege ihnen kein abgesondertes Dasein bei; Aristoteles andererseits komme es nicht in den Sinn, zu bestreiten, dass das Einzelne durch das Allgemeine (koinaí phýseis) bedingt sei. Der Ideenlehre soll Aristoteles nur scheinbar widersprechen: Er nehme ja auch Ursachen aller Dinge in Gott an, er wolle nur nicht, dass diese mit denselben Namen bezeichnet werden wie die Dinge. Ebenso wenig sollen die beiden Philosophen hinsichtlich der Materie verschiedener Ansicht sein, und die Stelle, in der Aristoteles den Unterschied seiner Bestimmungen von den platonischen auseinandersetzt, soll nicht auf die platonische Lehre selbst gehen, weil sie dieser, wie Simplicius glaubt, Unrecht tun würde. Auch Aristoteles’ Einwendungen gegen die Annahme, dass der Himmel durch die Seele in Bewegung gesetzt werde, sollen nicht auf Plato gemünzt sein; dass die Seele nach Aristoteles unbewegt ist, nach Plato sich selbst bewegt, soll das Gleiche bedeuten; dass Plato die Welt geworden nennt, Aristoteles ungeworden, verträgt sich ganz gut miteinander: Jener behauptet, sie sei aus einer höheren Ursache hervorgegangen, dieser leugnet, dass sie in der Zeit entstanden sei. Ähnlich verfährt Simplicius überhaupt, um den Widerstreit seiner zwei großen philosophischen Autoritäten zu beseitigen: Wo ein solcher vorzuliegen scheint, darf Aristoteles immer nur eine unrichtige und fassbare Auffassung Platos, nicht seine eigentliche Meinung angreifen. Selbst der aristotelischen Kritik pythagoreischer und parmenideischer Lehren lässt er die gleiche Entschuldigung zugutekommen; und wurden einmal die alten Philosophen in solchem Maße ins Neuplatonische umgedeutet, wie er es gewohnt ist, so konnte er allerdings den Einwürfen des Aristoteles gegen sie nicht Recht geben. Er folgt hier durchaus der Richtung, welche ihm seine Vorgänger bezeichnet hatten, und auch im Einzelnen wohl großenteils den Annahmen seiner Lehrer. Auch sonst ist kaum etwas Eigentümliches bei ihm zu finden. Er wiederholt und verteidigt die Lehren seiner Schule, aber er hat für ihre Weiterbildung nichts Erhebliches geleistet, wie diese auch bei einem schon so lange bestehenden und nach allen Seiten hin ausgeführten System ohne Umbau des Ganzen nicht wohl möglich war. Auch seine ausführliche Erörterung über den Raum ergibt nur unerhebliche Zusätze zu den Bestimmungen des Damascius; und wenn er hinsichtlich der Zeit der von diesem versuchten Annahme einer in jedem Augenblick ganz gegenwärtigen Zeit mit Recht widerspricht, so nähert er sich ihr doch wieder durch eine kaum weniger unklare Unterscheidung zwischen der urbildlichen und der aus ihr abgeleiteten Zeit: Jene soll den Dingen, die in der Zeit sind, als die Ursache ihres Zeitlebens vorangehen, welche den Verlauf desselben messe und ordne und ihn ebendamit zu einem zeitlichen mache. Um schließlich noch seine Ansicht über den Nous zu erwähnen, so bemüht er sich zwar, die verschiedenen Beziehungen, in denen dieser bei Aristoteles vorkommt, mittels der neuplatonischen Lehre vom Verhältnis des Niedrigeren zum Höheren begreiflich zu machen; doch gelingt es ihm nicht, über die an sich dunkle Sache dadurch ein neues Licht zu verbreiten. Er ist ein höchst achtungswerter Gelehrter, er ist auch als Philosoph kein bloßer Nachtreter der Früheren, aber er ist doch nicht mehr als der denkende Bearbeiter einer gegebenen und in allen wesentlichen Beziehungen zu ihrem Abschluss gekommenen Lehre. [the entire entry p. 910-914] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/c2H67ey2uKL9hou |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1450","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1450,"authors_free":[{"id":2436,"entry_id":1450,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":413,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zeller, Eduard","free_first_name":"Eduard","free_last_name":"Zeller","norm_person":{"id":413,"first_name":"Eduard","last_name":"Zeller,","full_name":"Zeller, Eduard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118636383","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Cilicier | Simplicius, welcher zuerst den Ammonius, dann den Damascius zum Lehrer gehabt hatte. Die Kommentare dieses Philosophen sind das Werk eines gro\u00dfen Flei\u00dfes und einer umfassenden Gelehrsamkeit; sie bilden nicht allein f\u00fcr uns eine unsch\u00e4tzbare Fundgrube von Bruchst\u00fccken \u00e4lterer Philosophen und von Nachrichten \u00fcber dieselben, sondern sie geben auch, trotz der Umdeutungen, von denen kein neuplatonischer Kommentar frei ist, eine sorgf\u00e4ltige und meist verst\u00e4ndige Erkl\u00e4rung des Textes.\r\n\r\nAber als Philosoph h\u00e4lt sich Simplicius ganz an seine Lehrer, ohne dass er zur Berichtigung oder Fortbildung ihrer Ergebnisse einen erheblichen Versuch machte. Ein unbedingter Bewunderer Platos, ein gl\u00e4ubiger Verehrer der chald\u00e4ischen G\u00f6ttersprache und des Orpheus, hat er zugleich von Aristoteles eine viel zu hohe Meinung, als dass er irgendeinen erheblichen Widerspruch zwischen ihm und Plato zugeben m\u00f6chte. In der Sache m\u00fcssen ja beide in allem Wesentlichen \u00fcbereinstimmen, wenn sie auch in den Worten sich dann und wann widersprechen.\r\n\r\nVon dieser Voraussetzung aus wei\u00df Simplicius das Einverst\u00e4ndnis des Aristoteles mit Plato auch da noch zu entdecken, wo jener gegen diesen in Wahrheit laute Einrede erhoben hat. So soll z. B. in Betreff der allgemeinen Begriffe zwischen beiden vollkommene \u00dcbereinstimmung bestehen: Plato, sagt Simplicius, unterscheide zwar die allgemeinen Begriffe von den Einzelwesen, aber er lege ihnen kein abgesondertes Dasein bei; Aristoteles andererseits komme es nicht in den Sinn, zu bestreiten, dass das Einzelne durch das Allgemeine (koina\u00ed ph\u00fdseis) bedingt sei.\r\n\r\nDer Ideenlehre soll Aristoteles nur scheinbar widersprechen: Er nehme ja auch Ursachen aller Dinge in Gott an, er wolle nur nicht, dass diese mit denselben Namen bezeichnet werden wie die Dinge. Ebenso wenig sollen die beiden Philosophen hinsichtlich der Materie verschiedener Ansicht sein, und die Stelle, in der Aristoteles den Unterschied seiner Bestimmungen von den platonischen auseinandersetzt, soll nicht auf die platonische Lehre selbst gehen, weil sie dieser, wie Simplicius glaubt, Unrecht tun w\u00fcrde.\r\n\r\nAuch Aristoteles\u2019 Einwendungen gegen die Annahme, dass der Himmel durch die Seele in Bewegung gesetzt werde, sollen nicht auf Plato gem\u00fcnzt sein; dass die Seele nach Aristoteles unbewegt ist, nach Plato sich selbst bewegt, soll das Gleiche bedeuten; dass Plato die Welt geworden nennt, Aristoteles ungeworden, vertr\u00e4gt sich ganz gut miteinander: Jener behauptet, sie sei aus einer h\u00f6heren Ursache hervorgegangen, dieser leugnet, dass sie in der Zeit entstanden sei.\r\n\r\n\u00c4hnlich verf\u00e4hrt Simplicius \u00fcberhaupt, um den Widerstreit seiner zwei gro\u00dfen philosophischen Autorit\u00e4ten zu beseitigen: Wo ein solcher vorzuliegen scheint, darf Aristoteles immer nur eine unrichtige und fassbare Auffassung Platos, nicht seine eigentliche Meinung angreifen. Selbst der aristotelischen Kritik pythagoreischer und parmenideischer Lehren l\u00e4sst er die gleiche Entschuldigung zugutekommen; und wurden einmal die alten Philosophen in solchem Ma\u00dfe ins Neuplatonische umgedeutet, wie er es gewohnt ist, so konnte er allerdings den Einw\u00fcrfen des Aristoteles gegen sie nicht Recht geben.\r\n\r\nEr folgt hier durchaus der Richtung, welche ihm seine Vorg\u00e4nger bezeichnet hatten, und auch im Einzelnen wohl gro\u00dfenteils den Annahmen seiner Lehrer. Auch sonst ist kaum etwas Eigent\u00fcmliches bei ihm zu finden. Er wiederholt und verteidigt die Lehren seiner Schule, aber er hat f\u00fcr ihre Weiterbildung nichts Erhebliches geleistet, wie diese auch bei einem schon so lange bestehenden und nach allen Seiten hin ausgef\u00fchrten System ohne Umbau des Ganzen nicht wohl m\u00f6glich war.\r\n\r\nAuch seine ausf\u00fchrliche Er\u00f6rterung \u00fcber den Raum ergibt nur unerhebliche Zus\u00e4tze zu den Bestimmungen des Damascius; und wenn er hinsichtlich der Zeit der von diesem versuchten Annahme einer in jedem Augenblick ganz gegenw\u00e4rtigen Zeit mit Recht widerspricht, so n\u00e4hert er sich ihr doch wieder durch eine kaum weniger unklare Unterscheidung zwischen der urbildlichen und der aus ihr abgeleiteten Zeit: Jene soll den Dingen, die in der Zeit sind, als die Ursache ihres Zeitlebens vorangehen, welche den Verlauf desselben messe und ordne und ihn ebendamit zu einem zeitlichen mache.\r\n\r\nUm schlie\u00dflich noch seine Ansicht \u00fcber den Nous zu erw\u00e4hnen, so bem\u00fcht er sich zwar, die verschiedenen Beziehungen, in denen dieser bei Aristoteles vorkommt, mittels der neuplatonischen Lehre vom Verh\u00e4ltnis des Niedrigeren zum H\u00f6heren begreiflich zu machen; doch gelingt es ihm nicht, \u00fcber die an sich dunkle Sache dadurch ein neues Licht zu verbreiten.\r\n\r\nEr ist ein h\u00f6chst achtungswerter Gelehrter, er ist auch als Philosoph kein blo\u00dfer Nachtreter der Fr\u00fcheren, aber er ist doch nicht mehr als der denkende Bearbeiter einer gegebenen und in allen wesentlichen Beziehungen zu ihrem Abschluss gekommenen Lehre. [the entire entry p. 910-914]","btype":2,"date":"1963","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/c2H67ey2uKL9hou","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":413,"full_name":"Zeller, Eduard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1450,"section_of":207,"pages":"909-915","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":207,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zeller1903","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1903","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1903","abstract":"Das erstmals zwischen 1844 und 1852 erschienene Werk \u203aDie Philosophie der Griechen. Eine Untersuchung \u00fcber Charakter, Gang und Hauptmomente ihrer Entwicklung\u2039 gilt als eine der monumentalsten philosophischen Studien der Geschichte. In nie wieder erreichter Vollst\u00e4ndigkeit und Geschlossenheit beschreibt Eduard Zeller hier den Entwicklungsgang der Philosophie Griechenlands. Als \u00dcbersichts- und Grundlagenwerk ist \u203aDer Zeller\u2039 auch heute noch von gro\u00dfer Bedeutung. Hervorhebenswert an der Arbeit Eduard Zellers ist vor allem, dass er eine akribische Quellenarbeit mit systematisch-philosophischem Interesse verbindet. Obwohl ein klassischer Gelehrter des 19. Jahrhunderts, philosophiert er in modernem wissenschaftlichen Sinne. Zeller, der den Begriff \u203aErkenntnistheorie\u2039 \u00fcberhaupt erst in die philosophische Diskussion eingef\u00fchrt hat, hat mit der \u203aPhilosophie der Griechen\u2039 ein Werk geschaffen, dessen Bedeutung auch im 21. Jahrhundert unbestritten ist. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wqWO03gtyLISydF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":207,"pubplace":"Leipzig","publisher":"Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft","series":"","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1963]}
| Title | Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 1958 |
| Published in | Saggi Sull'Aristotelismo Padovano Dal Secolo XIV Al XVI |
| Pages | 365-442 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Nardi, Bruno |
| Editor(s) | Nardi, Bruno |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/y3vD9CTRgZXlbJP |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"244","_score":null,"_source":{"id":244,"authors_free":[{"id":313,"entry_id":244,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":493,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Nardi, Bruno","free_first_name":"Bruno","free_last_name":"Nardi","norm_person":{"id":493,"first_name":"Bruno","last_name":"Nardi","full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119470691","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2463,"entry_id":244,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":493,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Nardi, Bruno","free_first_name":"Bruno","free_last_name":"Nardi","norm_person":{"id":493,"first_name":"Bruno","last_name":"Nardi","full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119470691","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI","main_title":{"title":"Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1958","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y3vD9CTRgZXlbJP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":493,"full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":493,"full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":244,"pubplace":"Padova","publisher":"Liviana","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":244,"section_of":1582,"pages":"365-442","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1582,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"it","title":"Saggi Sull'Aristotelismo Padovano Dal Secolo XIV Al XVI","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Nardi1958","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1958","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1582,"pubplace":"Florence","publisher":"G. G. Sansone","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1958]}
| Title | Aristote, Du ciel. Texte établi et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1965 |
| Published in | Aristote, Du ciel. Texte établi et traduit par Paul Moraux |
| Pages | VII-CXC |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Moraux, Paul |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The introduction discusses the object and structure of Aristotle's treatise De caelo, which presents a challenge for commentators due to its lack of unity. While some ancient commentators saw the study of the world as a whole as the main object of the treatise, others focused on the study of the celestial body and its relation to the sublunar world. The modern understanding of the genesis of Aristotle's works suggests that the treatise may have been formed by combining previously independent monographs. Additionally, Aristotle himself may have attempted to give his works a coherent structure, but did so in a somewhat artificial way. Despite these challenges, the treatise is seen as an important work in the history of philosophy and science. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EzAHeSeExATtJIm |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1375","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1375,"authors_free":[{"id":2085,"entry_id":1375,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction","main_title":{"title":"Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction"},"abstract":"The introduction discusses the object and structure of Aristotle's treatise De caelo, which presents a challenge for commentators due to its lack of unity. While some ancient commentators saw the study of the world as a whole as the main object of the treatise, others focused on the study of the celestial body and its relation to the sublunar world. The modern understanding of the genesis of Aristotle's works suggests that the treatise may have been formed by combining previously independent monographs. Additionally, Aristotle himself may have attempted to give his works a coherent structure, but did so in a somewhat artificial way. Despite these challenges, the treatise is seen as an important work in the history of philosophy and science. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1965","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EzAHeSeExATtJIm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1375,"section_of":1374,"pages":"VII-CXC","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1374,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1965","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/W0FrLs9BKUEyoH3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1374,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction"]}
| Title | Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 1958 |
| Published in | Saggi Sull'Aristotelismo Padovano Dal Secolo XIV Al XVI |
| Pages | 365-442 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Nardi, Bruno |
| Editor(s) | Nardi, Bruno |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/y3vD9CTRgZXlbJP |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"244","_score":null,"_source":{"id":244,"authors_free":[{"id":313,"entry_id":244,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":493,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Nardi, Bruno","free_first_name":"Bruno","free_last_name":"Nardi","norm_person":{"id":493,"first_name":"Bruno","last_name":"Nardi","full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119470691","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2463,"entry_id":244,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":493,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Nardi, Bruno","free_first_name":"Bruno","free_last_name":"Nardi","norm_person":{"id":493,"first_name":"Bruno","last_name":"Nardi","full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119470691","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI","main_title":{"title":"Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1958","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y3vD9CTRgZXlbJP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":493,"full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":493,"full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":244,"pubplace":"Padova","publisher":"Liviana","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":244,"section_of":1582,"pages":"365-442","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1582,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"it","title":"Saggi Sull'Aristotelismo Padovano Dal Secolo XIV Al XVI","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Nardi1958","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1958","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1582,"pubplace":"Florence","publisher":"G. G. Sansone","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI"]}
| Title | Simplicius |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1967 |
| Published in | The Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
| Pages | 448-449 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Lloyd, Antony C. |
| Editor(s) | Edwards, Paul |
| Translator(s) |
"SIMPLICIUS, sixth-century Neoplatonist and commen tator on Aristotle, studied in Alexandria under Ammonius and in Athens under Damascius. The School at Athens was closed in 529, and Simplicius withdrew to Persia. When he returned, his paganism barred him from lecturing. His surviving commentaries (on Aristotle’s Categories, Physics, De Caelo, and De Anima) are both more learned and more polemic than would have been suitable for students. His chief importance in the history of philosophy probably lies in his being a source of our knowledge of other ancient philosophers, notably the pre-Socratics.Simplicius takes for granted the metaphysics of Neopla tonism as it had been systematized in the Athenian School of the fifth century. He accepts the usual three hypostases but follows Iamblichus and Damascius in making much of the distinction between each hypostasis and, indeed, be tween each self-subsistent reality as it is undifferentiated (remaining in the One) and as it is differentiated or plural- ized (proceeding). (See, for example, In De Caelo, pp. 93- 94, Heiberg.) It is one of the concepts or devices by which he carries out the task that dominates his work, to reconcile Plato and Aristotle. They appear to disagree, for instance, about motion: a self-moving or an unmoved mover, the motion or immobility of reason, and so on. According to Simplicius, Plato is usually writing of the primary kind of motion, and Aristotle of the secondary, or proceeding, kind. Simplicius’ interpretation of the De Anima is based on that of Iamblichus, which took it as a valid description of the embodied soul, to be supplemented by a metaphysical account of the “separate” intellectIn natural philosophy, Simplicius, like other Neoplaton- ists, is more ready to criticize Aristotle, so that the result is more often a compromise, rather than a reconciliation, with Plato. Aristotelian matter had long been identi fied with Plato's not-being; Simplicius has little to add here to Plotinus and Porphyry. But the problems of space, mo tion, place, and allied concepts had repeatedly been ex amined and were already beginning to suggest relational definitions foreign to Aristotle's physics. In an excursus on the notion of place (In Physica, VoL XI, pp. 601-645, Diels) Simplicius describes some interesting and original views of Darnascius, which he reconciles with Aristotle only by implying, implausibly, that the two are complemen tary, A similar but less scientific treatment of time as a kind of metaphysical cause of the existence of motion and things in motion depends on the distinction already referred to be tween remaining in the One and proceeding; the latter aspect accounts for flowing time, which is the measure of succession,Simplicius also wrote an extant commentary on the Stoic Epictetus' Enchiridion (or handbook of ethics). In moral philosophy the Neoplafconists borrowed much from Stoi cism, and while well expressed, most of the commentary is commonplace for the period. However, it does contain a semipopular presentation of Neoplatonic theology or metaphysics (pp. 95-101, Diibner), and this has been claimed as a survival of Alexandrian Platonism in which (as in the Middle Academy) the highest hypostasis is not the One, but Intellect, The text i% not unambiguous but dubiously supports the claim." [the whole entry] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EDqpmOHmXAWfsyj |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"393","_score":null,"_source":{"id":393,"authors_free":[{"id":516,"entry_id":393,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":465,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","free_first_name":"Antony C.","free_last_name":"Lloyd","norm_person":{"id":465,"first_name":"Antony C.","last_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","full_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1052318118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":517,"entry_id":393,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":237,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Edwards, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Edwards","norm_person":{"id":237,"first_name":"Paul","last_name":"Edwards","full_name":"Edwards, Paul","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"\"SIMPLICIUS, sixth-century Neoplatonist and commen\u00ad\r\ntator on Aristotle, studied in Alexandria under Ammonius \r\nand in Athens under Damascius. The School at Athens was \r\nclosed in 529, and Simplicius withdrew to Persia. When he \r\nreturned, his paganism barred him from lecturing. His \r\nsurviving commentaries (on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, Physics, \r\nDe Caelo, and De Anima) are both more learned and more \r\npolemic than would have been suitable for students. His \r\nchief importance in the history of philosophy probably lies \r\nin his being a source of our knowledge of other ancient \r\nphilosophers, notably the pre-Socratics.Simplicius takes for granted the metaphysics of Neopla\u00ad\r\ntonism as it had been systematized in the Athenian School \r\nof the fifth century. He accepts the usual three hypostases \r\nbut follows Iamblichus and Damascius in making much of \r\nthe distinction between each hypostasis and, indeed, be\u00ad\r\ntween each self-subsistent reality as it is undifferentiated \r\n(remaining in the One) and as it is differentiated or plural- \r\nized (proceeding). (See, for example, In De Caelo, pp. 93- \r\n94, Heiberg.) It is one of the concepts or devices by \r\nwhich he carries out the task that dominates his work, to \r\nreconcile Plato and Aristotle. They appear to disagree, for \r\ninstance, about motion: a self-moving or an unmoved \r\nmover, the motion or immobility of reason, and so on. \r\nAccording to Simplicius, Plato is usually writing of the \r\nprimary kind of motion, and Aristotle of the secondary, or \r\nproceeding, kind. Simplicius\u2019 interpretation of the De \r\nAnima is based on that of Iamblichus, which took it as a \r\nvalid description of the embodied soul, to be supplemented \r\nby a metaphysical account of the \u201cseparate\u201d intellectIn natural philosophy, Simplicius, like other Neoplaton- \r\nists, is more ready to criticize Aristotle, so that the result\r\nis more often a compromise, rather than a reconciliation, \r\nwith Plato. Aristotelian matter had long been identi\u00ad\r\nfied with Plato's not-being; Simplicius has little to add here \r\nto Plotinus and Porphyry. But the problems of space, mo\u00ad\r\ntion, place, and allied concepts had repeatedly been ex\u00ad\r\namined and were already beginning to suggest relational \r\ndefinitions foreign to Aristotle's physics. In an excursus \r\non the notion of place (In Physica, VoL XI, pp. 601-645, \r\nDiels) Simplicius describes some interesting and original \r\nviews of Darnascius, which he reconciles with Aristotle \r\nonly by implying, implausibly, that the two are complemen\u00ad\r\ntary, A similar but less scientific treatment of time as a kind \r\nof metaphysical cause of the existence of motion and things \r\nin motion depends on the distinction already referred to be\u00ad\r\ntween remaining in the One and proceeding; the latter \r\naspect accounts for flowing time, which is the measure of \r\nsuccession,Simplicius also wrote an extant commentary on the Stoic \r\nEpictetus' Enchiridion (or handbook of ethics). In moral \r\nphilosophy the Neoplafconists borrowed much from Stoi\u00ad\r\ncism, and while well expressed, most of the commentary is \r\ncommonplace for the period. However, it does contain a \r\nsemipopular presentation of Neoplatonic theology or \r\nmetaphysics (pp. 95-101, Diibner), and this has been \r\nclaimed as a survival of Alexandrian Platonism in which (as \r\nin the Middle Academy) the highest hypostasis is not the \r\nOne, but Intellect, The text i% not unambiguous but \r\ndubiously supports the claim.\" [the whole entry]","btype":2,"date":"1967","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EDqpmOHmXAWfsyj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":465,"full_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":237,"full_name":"Edwards, Paul","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":393,"section_of":1371,"pages":"448-449","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1371,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Edwards1967","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1967","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The first English-language reference of its kind, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy was hailed as \"a remarkable and unique work\" (Saturday Review) that contained \"the international who's who of philosophy and cultural history\" (Library Journal). [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9TYFlO2oFqfGwvz","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1371,"pubplace":"London, New York","publisher":"Crowell-Collier Publishing Company","series":"","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}
| Title | Simplicius |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1963 |
| Published in | Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung |
| Pages | 909-915 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zeller, Eduard |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Cilicier | Simplicius, welcher zuerst den Ammonius, dann den Damascius zum Lehrer gehabt hatte. Die Kommentare dieses Philosophen sind das Werk eines großen Fleißes und einer umfassenden Gelehrsamkeit; sie bilden nicht allein für uns eine unschätzbare Fundgrube von Bruchstücken älterer Philosophen und von Nachrichten über dieselben, sondern sie geben auch, trotz der Umdeutungen, von denen kein neuplatonischer Kommentar frei ist, eine sorgfältige und meist verständige Erklärung des Textes. Aber als Philosoph hält sich Simplicius ganz an seine Lehrer, ohne dass er zur Berichtigung oder Fortbildung ihrer Ergebnisse einen erheblichen Versuch machte. Ein unbedingter Bewunderer Platos, ein gläubiger Verehrer der chaldäischen Göttersprache und des Orpheus, hat er zugleich von Aristoteles eine viel zu hohe Meinung, als dass er irgendeinen erheblichen Widerspruch zwischen ihm und Plato zugeben möchte. In der Sache müssen ja beide in allem Wesentlichen übereinstimmen, wenn sie auch in den Worten sich dann und wann widersprechen. Von dieser Voraussetzung aus weiß Simplicius das Einverständnis des Aristoteles mit Plato auch da noch zu entdecken, wo jener gegen diesen in Wahrheit laute Einrede erhoben hat. So soll z. B. in Betreff der allgemeinen Begriffe zwischen beiden vollkommene Übereinstimmung bestehen: Plato, sagt Simplicius, unterscheide zwar die allgemeinen Begriffe von den Einzelwesen, aber er lege ihnen kein abgesondertes Dasein bei; Aristoteles andererseits komme es nicht in den Sinn, zu bestreiten, dass das Einzelne durch das Allgemeine (koinaí phýseis) bedingt sei. Der Ideenlehre soll Aristoteles nur scheinbar widersprechen: Er nehme ja auch Ursachen aller Dinge in Gott an, er wolle nur nicht, dass diese mit denselben Namen bezeichnet werden wie die Dinge. Ebenso wenig sollen die beiden Philosophen hinsichtlich der Materie verschiedener Ansicht sein, und die Stelle, in der Aristoteles den Unterschied seiner Bestimmungen von den platonischen auseinandersetzt, soll nicht auf die platonische Lehre selbst gehen, weil sie dieser, wie Simplicius glaubt, Unrecht tun würde. Auch Aristoteles’ Einwendungen gegen die Annahme, dass der Himmel durch die Seele in Bewegung gesetzt werde, sollen nicht auf Plato gemünzt sein; dass die Seele nach Aristoteles unbewegt ist, nach Plato sich selbst bewegt, soll das Gleiche bedeuten; dass Plato die Welt geworden nennt, Aristoteles ungeworden, verträgt sich ganz gut miteinander: Jener behauptet, sie sei aus einer höheren Ursache hervorgegangen, dieser leugnet, dass sie in der Zeit entstanden sei. Ähnlich verfährt Simplicius überhaupt, um den Widerstreit seiner zwei großen philosophischen Autoritäten zu beseitigen: Wo ein solcher vorzuliegen scheint, darf Aristoteles immer nur eine unrichtige und fassbare Auffassung Platos, nicht seine eigentliche Meinung angreifen. Selbst der aristotelischen Kritik pythagoreischer und parmenideischer Lehren lässt er die gleiche Entschuldigung zugutekommen; und wurden einmal die alten Philosophen in solchem Maße ins Neuplatonische umgedeutet, wie er es gewohnt ist, so konnte er allerdings den Einwürfen des Aristoteles gegen sie nicht Recht geben. Er folgt hier durchaus der Richtung, welche ihm seine Vorgänger bezeichnet hatten, und auch im Einzelnen wohl großenteils den Annahmen seiner Lehrer. Auch sonst ist kaum etwas Eigentümliches bei ihm zu finden. Er wiederholt und verteidigt die Lehren seiner Schule, aber er hat für ihre Weiterbildung nichts Erhebliches geleistet, wie diese auch bei einem schon so lange bestehenden und nach allen Seiten hin ausgeführten System ohne Umbau des Ganzen nicht wohl möglich war. Auch seine ausführliche Erörterung über den Raum ergibt nur unerhebliche Zusätze zu den Bestimmungen des Damascius; und wenn er hinsichtlich der Zeit der von diesem versuchten Annahme einer in jedem Augenblick ganz gegenwärtigen Zeit mit Recht widerspricht, so nähert er sich ihr doch wieder durch eine kaum weniger unklare Unterscheidung zwischen der urbildlichen und der aus ihr abgeleiteten Zeit: Jene soll den Dingen, die in der Zeit sind, als die Ursache ihres Zeitlebens vorangehen, welche den Verlauf desselben messe und ordne und ihn ebendamit zu einem zeitlichen mache. Um schließlich noch seine Ansicht über den Nous zu erwähnen, so bemüht er sich zwar, die verschiedenen Beziehungen, in denen dieser bei Aristoteles vorkommt, mittels der neuplatonischen Lehre vom Verhältnis des Niedrigeren zum Höheren begreiflich zu machen; doch gelingt es ihm nicht, über die an sich dunkle Sache dadurch ein neues Licht zu verbreiten. Er ist ein höchst achtungswerter Gelehrter, er ist auch als Philosoph kein bloßer Nachtreter der Früheren, aber er ist doch nicht mehr als der denkende Bearbeiter einer gegebenen und in allen wesentlichen Beziehungen zu ihrem Abschluss gekommenen Lehre. [the entire entry p. 910-914] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/c2H67ey2uKL9hou |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1450","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1450,"authors_free":[{"id":2436,"entry_id":1450,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":413,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zeller, Eduard","free_first_name":"Eduard","free_last_name":"Zeller","norm_person":{"id":413,"first_name":"Eduard","last_name":"Zeller,","full_name":"Zeller, Eduard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118636383","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Cilicier | Simplicius, welcher zuerst den Ammonius, dann den Damascius zum Lehrer gehabt hatte. Die Kommentare dieses Philosophen sind das Werk eines gro\u00dfen Flei\u00dfes und einer umfassenden Gelehrsamkeit; sie bilden nicht allein f\u00fcr uns eine unsch\u00e4tzbare Fundgrube von Bruchst\u00fccken \u00e4lterer Philosophen und von Nachrichten \u00fcber dieselben, sondern sie geben auch, trotz der Umdeutungen, von denen kein neuplatonischer Kommentar frei ist, eine sorgf\u00e4ltige und meist verst\u00e4ndige Erkl\u00e4rung des Textes.\r\n\r\nAber als Philosoph h\u00e4lt sich Simplicius ganz an seine Lehrer, ohne dass er zur Berichtigung oder Fortbildung ihrer Ergebnisse einen erheblichen Versuch machte. Ein unbedingter Bewunderer Platos, ein gl\u00e4ubiger Verehrer der chald\u00e4ischen G\u00f6ttersprache und des Orpheus, hat er zugleich von Aristoteles eine viel zu hohe Meinung, als dass er irgendeinen erheblichen Widerspruch zwischen ihm und Plato zugeben m\u00f6chte. In der Sache m\u00fcssen ja beide in allem Wesentlichen \u00fcbereinstimmen, wenn sie auch in den Worten sich dann und wann widersprechen.\r\n\r\nVon dieser Voraussetzung aus wei\u00df Simplicius das Einverst\u00e4ndnis des Aristoteles mit Plato auch da noch zu entdecken, wo jener gegen diesen in Wahrheit laute Einrede erhoben hat. So soll z. B. in Betreff der allgemeinen Begriffe zwischen beiden vollkommene \u00dcbereinstimmung bestehen: Plato, sagt Simplicius, unterscheide zwar die allgemeinen Begriffe von den Einzelwesen, aber er lege ihnen kein abgesondertes Dasein bei; Aristoteles andererseits komme es nicht in den Sinn, zu bestreiten, dass das Einzelne durch das Allgemeine (koina\u00ed ph\u00fdseis) bedingt sei.\r\n\r\nDer Ideenlehre soll Aristoteles nur scheinbar widersprechen: Er nehme ja auch Ursachen aller Dinge in Gott an, er wolle nur nicht, dass diese mit denselben Namen bezeichnet werden wie die Dinge. Ebenso wenig sollen die beiden Philosophen hinsichtlich der Materie verschiedener Ansicht sein, und die Stelle, in der Aristoteles den Unterschied seiner Bestimmungen von den platonischen auseinandersetzt, soll nicht auf die platonische Lehre selbst gehen, weil sie dieser, wie Simplicius glaubt, Unrecht tun w\u00fcrde.\r\n\r\nAuch Aristoteles\u2019 Einwendungen gegen die Annahme, dass der Himmel durch die Seele in Bewegung gesetzt werde, sollen nicht auf Plato gem\u00fcnzt sein; dass die Seele nach Aristoteles unbewegt ist, nach Plato sich selbst bewegt, soll das Gleiche bedeuten; dass Plato die Welt geworden nennt, Aristoteles ungeworden, vertr\u00e4gt sich ganz gut miteinander: Jener behauptet, sie sei aus einer h\u00f6heren Ursache hervorgegangen, dieser leugnet, dass sie in der Zeit entstanden sei.\r\n\r\n\u00c4hnlich verf\u00e4hrt Simplicius \u00fcberhaupt, um den Widerstreit seiner zwei gro\u00dfen philosophischen Autorit\u00e4ten zu beseitigen: Wo ein solcher vorzuliegen scheint, darf Aristoteles immer nur eine unrichtige und fassbare Auffassung Platos, nicht seine eigentliche Meinung angreifen. Selbst der aristotelischen Kritik pythagoreischer und parmenideischer Lehren l\u00e4sst er die gleiche Entschuldigung zugutekommen; und wurden einmal die alten Philosophen in solchem Ma\u00dfe ins Neuplatonische umgedeutet, wie er es gewohnt ist, so konnte er allerdings den Einw\u00fcrfen des Aristoteles gegen sie nicht Recht geben.\r\n\r\nEr folgt hier durchaus der Richtung, welche ihm seine Vorg\u00e4nger bezeichnet hatten, und auch im Einzelnen wohl gro\u00dfenteils den Annahmen seiner Lehrer. Auch sonst ist kaum etwas Eigent\u00fcmliches bei ihm zu finden. Er wiederholt und verteidigt die Lehren seiner Schule, aber er hat f\u00fcr ihre Weiterbildung nichts Erhebliches geleistet, wie diese auch bei einem schon so lange bestehenden und nach allen Seiten hin ausgef\u00fchrten System ohne Umbau des Ganzen nicht wohl m\u00f6glich war.\r\n\r\nAuch seine ausf\u00fchrliche Er\u00f6rterung \u00fcber den Raum ergibt nur unerhebliche Zus\u00e4tze zu den Bestimmungen des Damascius; und wenn er hinsichtlich der Zeit der von diesem versuchten Annahme einer in jedem Augenblick ganz gegenw\u00e4rtigen Zeit mit Recht widerspricht, so n\u00e4hert er sich ihr doch wieder durch eine kaum weniger unklare Unterscheidung zwischen der urbildlichen und der aus ihr abgeleiteten Zeit: Jene soll den Dingen, die in der Zeit sind, als die Ursache ihres Zeitlebens vorangehen, welche den Verlauf desselben messe und ordne und ihn ebendamit zu einem zeitlichen mache.\r\n\r\nUm schlie\u00dflich noch seine Ansicht \u00fcber den Nous zu erw\u00e4hnen, so bem\u00fcht er sich zwar, die verschiedenen Beziehungen, in denen dieser bei Aristoteles vorkommt, mittels der neuplatonischen Lehre vom Verh\u00e4ltnis des Niedrigeren zum H\u00f6heren begreiflich zu machen; doch gelingt es ihm nicht, \u00fcber die an sich dunkle Sache dadurch ein neues Licht zu verbreiten.\r\n\r\nEr ist ein h\u00f6chst achtungswerter Gelehrter, er ist auch als Philosoph kein blo\u00dfer Nachtreter der Fr\u00fcheren, aber er ist doch nicht mehr als der denkende Bearbeiter einer gegebenen und in allen wesentlichen Beziehungen zu ihrem Abschluss gekommenen Lehre. [the entire entry p. 910-914]","btype":2,"date":"1963","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/c2H67ey2uKL9hou","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":413,"full_name":"Zeller, Eduard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1450,"section_of":207,"pages":"909-915","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":207,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zeller1903","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1903","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1903","abstract":"Das erstmals zwischen 1844 und 1852 erschienene Werk \u203aDie Philosophie der Griechen. Eine Untersuchung \u00fcber Charakter, Gang und Hauptmomente ihrer Entwicklung\u2039 gilt als eine der monumentalsten philosophischen Studien der Geschichte. In nie wieder erreichter Vollst\u00e4ndigkeit und Geschlossenheit beschreibt Eduard Zeller hier den Entwicklungsgang der Philosophie Griechenlands. Als \u00dcbersichts- und Grundlagenwerk ist \u203aDer Zeller\u2039 auch heute noch von gro\u00dfer Bedeutung. Hervorhebenswert an der Arbeit Eduard Zellers ist vor allem, dass er eine akribische Quellenarbeit mit systematisch-philosophischem Interesse verbindet. Obwohl ein klassischer Gelehrter des 19. Jahrhunderts, philosophiert er in modernem wissenschaftlichen Sinne. Zeller, der den Begriff \u203aErkenntnistheorie\u2039 \u00fcberhaupt erst in die philosophische Diskussion eingef\u00fchrt hat, hat mit der \u203aPhilosophie der Griechen\u2039 ein Werk geschaffen, dessen Bedeutung auch im 21. Jahrhundert unbestritten ist. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wqWO03gtyLISydF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":207,"pubplace":"Leipzig","publisher":"Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft","series":"","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}
| Title | The Last Days of the Academy at Athens |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1969 |
| Published in | Proceedings of the Cambridge philological society |
| Pages | 7-29 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Cameron, Alan |
| Editor(s) | Kenney, Edward J. , Dawe, Roger D. |
| Translator(s) |
Even those who know nothing else o f Justinian know that he closed the Academy at Athens in a . d . 529—the very year that St Benedict had founded the monastery o f Monte Cassino.1 For those who like schematic boundaries between the ancient and medieval worlds, between the pagan past and the Christian future, here is a truly symbolic date.The romantic sequel is hardly less familiar:2 the seven out-of-work Platonists who left Athens for Persia, which under its new King Chosroes they had heard closely resembled the ideal state their master had written of. On their arrival, alas, they discovered that Chosroes, while amiable enough and genuinely interested in philo sophy, was far from being the philosopher-king they had dreamed of. And his subjects were no less corrupt than the Romans. The disillusioned philosophers confessed their disappointment to the king, who not only graciously consented to their immediate return, but even went so far as to make Justinian write into the peace treaty they were just then concluding (September 532) a safe conduct home for all seven and a guarantee that they would be allowed to live out their lives in Roman territory in peace as pagans.This much is well known. But some details are unclear, others unexplored. Several misconceptions prevail. A number of relevant texts have never been properly exploited, some not even considered. What was Justinian’s motive? Did he give the last push to a tottering edifice, or destroy a thriving intellectual centre? Indeed, did he actually succeed in destroying anything at all? What did the philosophers do on their return? [Introduction, p. 7] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FwNaicAoI9i8Wka |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1046","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1046,"authors_free":[{"id":1591,"entry_id":1046,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":20,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cameron, Alan ","free_first_name":"Alan","free_last_name":"Cameron","norm_person":{"id":20,"first_name":"Alan","last_name":"Cameron","full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143568914","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2332,"entry_id":1046,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":21,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kenney, Edward J.","free_first_name":"Edward J.","free_last_name":"Kenney","norm_person":{"id":21,"first_name":"Edward J. ","last_name":"Kenney","full_name":"Kenney, Edward J. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121559602","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2333,"entry_id":1046,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":22,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Dawe, Roger D. ","free_first_name":"Roger D. ","free_last_name":"Dawe","norm_person":{"id":22,"first_name":"Roger D. ","last_name":"Dawe","full_name":"Dawe, Roger D. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131727796","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Last Days of the Academy at Athens","main_title":{"title":"The Last Days of the Academy at Athens"},"abstract":"Even those who know nothing else o f Justinian know that he closed the Academy at \r\nAthens in a . d . 529\u2014the very year that St Benedict had founded the monastery o f \r\nMonte Cassino.1 For those who like schematic boundaries between the ancient and \r\nmedieval worlds, between the pagan past and the Christian future, here is a truly \r\nsymbolic date.The romantic sequel is hardly less familiar:2 the seven out-of-work Platonists who \r\nleft Athens for Persia, which under its new King Chosroes they had heard closely \r\nresembled the ideal state their master had written of. On their arrival, alas, they \r\ndiscovered that Chosroes, while amiable enough and genuinely interested in philo\u00ad\r\nsophy, was far from being the philosopher-king they had dreamed of. And his subjects \r\nwere no less corrupt than the Romans. The disillusioned philosophers confessed their \r\ndisappointment to the king, who not only graciously consented to their immediate \r\nreturn, but even went so far as to make Justinian write into the peace treaty they were \r\njust then concluding (September 532) a safe conduct home for all seven and a guarantee \r\nthat they would be allowed to live out their lives in Roman territory in peace as pagans.This much is well known. But some details are unclear, others unexplored. Several \r\nmisconceptions prevail. A number of relevant texts have never been properly exploited, \r\nsome not even considered. What was Justinian\u2019s motive? Did he give the last push to \r\na tottering edifice, or destroy a thriving intellectual centre? Indeed, did he actually \r\nsucceed in destroying anything at all? What did the philosophers do on their return? [Introduction, p. 7]","btype":2,"date":"1969","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FwNaicAoI9i8Wka","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":20,"full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":21,"full_name":"Kenney, Edward J. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":22,"full_name":"Dawe, Roger D. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1046,"section_of":1601,"pages":"7-29","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1601,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the Cambridge philological society","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kennery_Dawe1969","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1969","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The objects of the Society are the furtherance of classical studies, particularly the discussion and publication of critical researches on the literature and civilization of Greece and Rome. Any classical scholar is eligible for membership. The subscription of a resident in Cambridge is \u00a31 10s. annually, and of a member resident elsewhere, 12s. 6d. annually. Members receive notices of all meetings of the Society and of its publications. Any library may subscribe to the Society and receive copies of its publications. The subscription for libraries is \u00a31 10s. annually.\r\n\r\nThe Society is responsible for two series of publications. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, containing papers read at the Society and other articles by members, appears annually. Contributions intended for the Proceedings should be addressed to Dr. R. D. Dawe, Trinity College, Cambridge. Supplements to the Proceedings, consisting of monographs, appear occasionally, less frequently, and at irregular intervals. This series is designed to accommodate works of intermediate size, i.e., of about 100 pages.\r\n\r\nMembers of the Society are invited to submit proposals for monographs to be published in this series. Proposals should be addressed to Mr. H. J. Easterling, Trinity College, Cambridge. Applications for membership, and all other correspondence relating to the Society, should be addressed to Mr. H. J. Easterling, Trinity College, Cambridge. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2Aa8zUMrmYCuniC","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1601,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"New Series No. 15","volume":"195","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Last Days of the Academy at Athens"]}