Author 126
L'ecole néoplatonicienne d'Athènes, 1990
By: Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Title L'ecole néoplatonicienne d'Athènes
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1990
Published in Recherches sur le néoplatonisme après Plotin
Pages 127-129
Categories no categories
Author(s) Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
À l’intérieur du vaste mouvement philosophique que l’on désigne globalement sous le nom de néo-platonisme et qui se développe du IIIe au VIe siècle après J.-C., on distingue des écoles diverses. Fondé à Rome par Plotin, qui y enseigne de 245 à 270, et maintenu vivant sur place par Porphyre et ses successeurs (dont plusieurs passèrent au christianisme, par exemple Marius Victorinus), le néo-platonisme se répandit d’abord en Asie Mineure et spécialement à Apamée et Antioche, où enseigna Jamblique. Celui-ci réussit à amalgamer la métaphysique plotinienne et les théories et pratiques de la théurgie en vogue dans l’Orient grec. Cette synthèse fournit à l’empereur Julien l’Apostat une base doctrinale pour le renouveau de la religion païenne qu’il tenta de faire triompher sous son règne (361-363). De cette école syrienne sortirent deux rameaux d’inégale valeur : d’une part, l’école de Pergame, franchement adonnée à la magie et délaissant entièrement le vieux rationalisme grec, et, d’autre part, l’école d’Athènes, qui parviendra à se greffer sur la souche de l’antique Académie de Platon au début du Ve siècle. À peu près au même moment, un autre rejeton paraîtra à Alexandrie, et cette école survivra même à celle d’Athènes pour faire passer au monde arabe vers la fin du VIe siècle tout le capital du néo-platonisme. [introduction p. 126]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1174","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1174,"authors_free":[{"id":1749,"entry_id":1174,"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":"L'ecole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'Ath\u00e8nes","main_title":{"title":"L'ecole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'Ath\u00e8nes"},"abstract":"\u00c0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur du vaste mouvement philosophique que l\u2019on d\u00e9signe globalement sous le nom de n\u00e9o-platonisme et qui se d\u00e9veloppe du IIIe au VIe si\u00e8cle apr\u00e8s J.-C., on distingue des \u00e9coles diverses.\r\n\r\nFond\u00e9 \u00e0 Rome par Plotin, qui y enseigne de 245 \u00e0 270, et maintenu vivant sur place par Porphyre et ses successeurs (dont plusieurs pass\u00e8rent au christianisme, par exemple Marius Victorinus), le n\u00e9o-platonisme se r\u00e9pandit d\u2019abord en Asie Mineure et sp\u00e9cialement \u00e0 Apam\u00e9e et Antioche, o\u00f9 enseigna Jamblique. Celui-ci r\u00e9ussit \u00e0 amalgamer la m\u00e9taphysique plotinienne et les th\u00e9ories et pratiques de la th\u00e9urgie en vogue dans l\u2019Orient grec. Cette synth\u00e8se fournit \u00e0 l\u2019empereur Julien l\u2019Apostat une base doctrinale pour le renouveau de la religion pa\u00efenne qu\u2019il tenta de faire triompher sous son r\u00e8gne (361-363).\r\n\r\nDe cette \u00e9cole syrienne sortirent deux rameaux d\u2019in\u00e9gale valeur : d\u2019une part, l\u2019\u00e9cole de Pergame, franchement adonn\u00e9e \u00e0 la magie et d\u00e9laissant enti\u00e8rement le vieux rationalisme grec, et, d\u2019autre part, l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, qui parviendra \u00e0 se greffer sur la souche de l\u2019antique Acad\u00e9mie de Platon au d\u00e9but du Ve si\u00e8cle.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 peu pr\u00e8s au m\u00eame moment, un autre rejeton para\u00eetra \u00e0 Alexandrie, et cette \u00e9cole survivra m\u00eame \u00e0 celle d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes pour faire passer au monde arabe vers la fin du VIe si\u00e8cle tout le capital du n\u00e9o-platonisme. [introduction p. 126]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZrGOMqaxAxCT1p0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1174,"section_of":1461,"pages":"127-129","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1461,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Recherches sur le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Saffrey1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PXWKxSDEtCXXJtb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1461,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Histoire des doctrines de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens, 1990
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1990
Published in Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Traduction commentée sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Première partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)
Pages 21-47
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
The text discusses the introductions to exegetical commentaries by Neoplatonic and Christian authors, using Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories as an example. It is divided into two parts: the first provides the historical context, sources and method, and the second develops the two traditional outlines used in the introduction of commentaries on the Categories. These two outlines are found in the commentaries of the four other Neoplatonic authors who commented on the Categories, namely Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore and David, and also in the Arabic introductions of Al-Farabi and Al-Kindi. The text offers a comparative study of the commentaries and the introductions, highlighting the differences in structure and form. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1182","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1182,"authors_free":[{"id":1755,"entry_id":1182,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1974,"entry_id":1182,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les introductions aux commentaires ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques chez les auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens et les auteurs chr\u00e9tiens","main_title":{"title":"Les introductions aux commentaires ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques chez les auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens et les auteurs chr\u00e9tiens"},"abstract":"The text discusses the introductions to exegetical commentaries by Neoplatonic and Christian authors, using Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories as an example. It is divided into two parts: the first provides the historical context, sources and method, and the second develops the two traditional outlines used in the introduction of commentaries on the Categories. These two outlines are found in the commentaries of the four other Neoplatonic authors who commented on the Categories, namely Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore and David, and also in the Arabic introductions of Al-Farabi and Al-Kindi. The text offers a comparative study of the commentaries and the introductions, highlighting the differences in structure and form. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2ecCQO0VOCCVgZa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1182,"section_of":179,"pages":"21-47","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":179,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Premi\u00e8re partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1990e","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The French translation with commentary, the first in a modern language, allows historians of philosophy access to a fundamental work for the understanding of medieval and modern thought. They could also explore more easily the great variety of information contained in the commentary of Simplicius on the history of the exegis of the Cat\u00e9gories of Aristotle, and more generally on the history of comparative philosophy of Simplicius. They will discover some important aspects in the actual thought of Simplicius, which so far has hardly been explored. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KyrBWf80BsqVFO8","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":179,"pubplace":"Leiden - New York - K\u00f8benhavn - K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua. A Series of studies on ancient Philosophy","volume":"50.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie, 1990
By: Isnardi Parente, Margherita
Title Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 1990
Journal Rivista di Storia della Filosofia
Volume 45
Issue 4
Pages 723-732
Categories no categories
Author(s) Isnardi Parente, Margherita
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
La storia del concetto di relativo ha già precedenti che sarebbe troppo lungo ricordare. Basti accennare qui a due essenziali limitazioni che i relativi hanno già subito nella storia della tradizione platonico-aristotelica: la negazione di un modello ideale per la relazione (i modelli ideali esistono per le realtà poste in relazione, non per la relazione stessa o per ciò che è solo in funzione della relazione); la definizione di paraphyas per il relativo, definizione che va da Aristotele (EN I, 1096 a 21) ad Andronico ed oltre: paraphyas, cioè ciò che si pone accanto alla vera phýsis, come una sorta di natura aggiunta e secondaria. Gli stoici hanno una loro parte nella storia di questa riduzione della relazione a fatto di ordine mentale o soggettivo. I pros ti pôs echonta sono una nuova forma di incorporeo che viene ad aggiungersi alle altre, anche se nessuna lista riveduta ci è fornita dalla tradizione. E di questa nuova importanza dell'incorporeità in rapporto con la teoria dei generi dell'essere, passi come quello di Simplicio o come questo di Sesto offrono una attestazione fondamentale. [conclusion p. 731-732]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"620","_score":null,"_source":{"id":620,"authors_free":[{"id":876,"entry_id":620,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":282,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","free_first_name":"Margherita","free_last_name":"Parente","norm_person":{"id":282,"first_name":"Margherita","last_name":"Isnardi Parente","full_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1023256045","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie","main_title":{"title":"Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie"},"abstract":"La storia del concetto di relativo ha gi\u00e0 precedenti che sarebbe troppo lungo ricordare. Basti accennare qui a due essenziali limitazioni che i relativi hanno gi\u00e0 subito nella storia della tradizione platonico-aristotelica: la negazione di un modello ideale per la relazione (i modelli ideali esistono per le realt\u00e0 poste in relazione, non per la relazione stessa o per ci\u00f2 che \u00e8 solo in funzione della relazione); la definizione di paraphyas per il relativo, definizione che va da Aristotele (EN I, 1096 a 21) ad Andronico ed oltre: paraphyas, cio\u00e8 ci\u00f2 che si pone accanto alla vera ph\u00fdsis, come una sorta di natura aggiunta e secondaria.\r\n\r\nGli stoici hanno una loro parte nella storia di questa riduzione della relazione a fatto di ordine mentale o soggettivo. I pros ti p\u00f4s echonta sono una nuova forma di incorporeo che viene ad aggiungersi alle altre, anche se nessuna lista riveduta ci \u00e8 fornita dalla tradizione. E di questa nuova importanza dell'incorporeit\u00e0 in rapporto con la teoria dei generi dell'essere, passi come quello di Simplicio o come questo di Sesto offrono una attestazione fondamentale. [conclusion p. 731-732]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RIxIO3H5yPGRKEc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":282,"full_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":620,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rivista di Storia della Filosofia","volume":"45","issue":"4","pages":"723-732"}},"sort":[1990]}

Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie, 1990
By: Dillon, John
Title Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie
Type Article
Language English
Date 1990
Journal Journal of Hellenic Studies
Volume 110
Pages 244–245
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dillon, John
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius is a man who might seem destined forever to be used simply as a source for other thinkers, without being given much credit for thinking himself. After all, his surviving works are overtly commentaries on one work or another (overwhelmingly of Aristotle)—though, in fact, small bits of more original work are embedded in these, such as the Corollaries on Space and Time in the Physics commentary. He is also a man of exemplary modesty about his own contributions, always making clear his debts to previous authorities, quoting his sources to an extent unusual in Neoplatonist circles (or indeed in the ancient world in general). It was therefore a happy idea of Mme. Hadot to call together a conference of distinguished Neoplatonists to honor Simplicius and to produce this impressive volume as a result. The work is divided into four (unequal) parts: A biographical introduction A series of essays on doctrinal and methodological questions A shorter section on textual problems A pair of essays on Simplicius' Nachleben All are of interest and importance. First, we have an essay by Ilsetraut Hadot herself (depending in one important respect on the essay of Michel Tardieu, which follows it) on the chronology of Simplicius' life and works. Tardieu, by a fine piece of detective work (Simplicius et les calendriers de Harran), argues with at least great probability that when Simplicius returned with the other philosophers from Persia in 532, it was not to Athens or any other major center but rather to the town of Harran (Carrhae) in Osrhoene. There, a tradition of non-conformist Christianity was tolerant of philosophy, and it is likely where he composed most, if not all, of his commentaries. Certain remarks Simplicius makes in In Phys. 874.23 ff., about the four different calendars "we" use, seem to require his presence at the only known place where four calendars were simultaneously in use, as we know from later Arab sources. The central part of the collection comprises six essays on aspects of doctrine: Two by Philippe Hoffmann (Categories et langage selon Simplicius: on the purpose (skopos) of Aristotle's Categories and an analysis of Simplicius’ invective against John Philoponus) One by Henry Blumenthal on the doctrine of the De Anima commentary of Simplicius (if it is indeed by Simplicius) One by Concetta Luna on Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary One by Richard Sorabji on Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension One by Nestor-Luis Cordero on Simplicius et l'école éléate Hoffmann's studies frame this central portion of the work. His first examines Simplicius' account of the skopos of Aristotle's Categories, showing how Simplicius, following Porphyry, views the Categories as addressing "utterances" (phonai), "things" (pragmata, onta), "concepts" (noemata), or all of these. Simplicius interprets the study of language, particularly its primary constituents, as a preparation for the soul’s ascent to the noetic world—a higher interpretation inherited from Iamblichus. In his second study, Hoffmann examines Simplicius' strategies of polemic and invective against Philoponus, particularly in the De Caelo, and Simplicius' view of the higher purpose of studying celestial matters. For Simplicius, even prosaic texts like the Categories could become an elevating and prayerful experience. Sorabji, in an elegant contribution, shows how Simplicius solves a problem bequeathed by Aristotle by identifying prime matter with extension, which Aristotle did not do. Cordero challenges the idea of an Eleatic "school" while listing Simplicius’ quotations of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. Blumenthal discusses Simplicius’ doctrine of the soul, though his uncertainty about the authorship of the De Anima commentary (potentially by Priscian) limits the analysis. Luna traces Iamblichean roots in Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary. The final sections include discussions of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius, with contributions by Ilsetraut Hadot, Leonardo Taran, and Dieter Harlfinger. Taran critiques Diels’ edition of Simplicius' Physics commentary, showing its deficiencies due to reliance on unreliable collations and limited understanding of Neoplatonic doctrine. Harlfinger analyzes contamination in the manuscript tradition of the commentary on Books I-IV. The collection concludes with two papers on Simplicius’ influence in the medieval West, one by Fernand Boissier on Latin translations and the influence of the In De Caelo commentary and another by Pierre Hadot on the survival of the Manuel d'Épictète commentary in the 15th to 17th centuries. Overall, this collection has given Simplicius much of his due as a major commentator and preserver of earlier Greek philosophy. While only three papers—those by Blumenthal, Luna, and Sorabji—discuss any distinctive doctrines of Simplicius, this is perhaps reasonable given that he does not claim originality. Most of what seems distinctive likely goes back to Iamblichus or Syrianus/Proclus. Yet, it might one day be possible to produce a focused volume on his doctrinal innovations. [the entire text]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"708","_score":null,"_source":{"id":708,"authors_free":[{"id":1056,"entry_id":708,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie","main_title":{"title":"Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie"},"abstract":"Simplicius is a man who might seem destined forever to be used simply as a source for other thinkers, without being given much credit for thinking himself. After all, his surviving works are overtly commentaries on one work or another (overwhelmingly of Aristotle)\u2014though, in fact, small bits of more original work are embedded in these, such as the Corollaries on Space and Time in the Physics commentary. He is also a man of exemplary modesty about his own contributions, always making clear his debts to previous authorities, quoting his sources to an extent unusual in Neoplatonist circles (or indeed in the ancient world in general).\r\n\r\nIt was therefore a happy idea of Mme. Hadot to call together a conference of distinguished Neoplatonists to honor Simplicius and to produce this impressive volume as a result. The work is divided into four (unequal) parts:\r\n\r\n A biographical introduction\r\n A series of essays on doctrinal and methodological questions\r\n A shorter section on textual problems\r\n A pair of essays on Simplicius' Nachleben\r\n\r\nAll are of interest and importance.\r\n\r\nFirst, we have an essay by Ilsetraut Hadot herself (depending in one important respect on the essay of Michel Tardieu, which follows it) on the chronology of Simplicius' life and works. Tardieu, by a fine piece of detective work (Simplicius et les calendriers de Harran), argues with at least great probability that when Simplicius returned with the other philosophers from Persia in 532, it was not to Athens or any other major center but rather to the town of Harran (Carrhae) in Osrhoene. There, a tradition of non-conformist Christianity was tolerant of philosophy, and it is likely where he composed most, if not all, of his commentaries. Certain remarks Simplicius makes in In Phys. 874.23 ff., about the four different calendars \"we\" use, seem to require his presence at the only known place where four calendars were simultaneously in use, as we know from later Arab sources.\r\n\r\nThe central part of the collection comprises six essays on aspects of doctrine:\r\n\r\n Two by Philippe Hoffmann (Categories et langage selon Simplicius: on the purpose (skopos) of Aristotle's Categories and an analysis of Simplicius\u2019 invective against John Philoponus)\r\n One by Henry Blumenthal on the doctrine of the De Anima commentary of Simplicius (if it is indeed by Simplicius)\r\n One by Concetta Luna on Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary\r\n One by Richard Sorabji on Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension\r\n One by Nestor-Luis Cordero on Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole \u00e9l\u00e9ate\r\n\r\nHoffmann's studies frame this central portion of the work. His first examines Simplicius' account of the skopos of Aristotle's Categories, showing how Simplicius, following Porphyry, views the Categories as addressing \"utterances\" (phonai), \"things\" (pragmata, onta), \"concepts\" (noemata), or all of these. Simplicius interprets the study of language, particularly its primary constituents, as a preparation for the soul\u2019s ascent to the noetic world\u2014a higher interpretation inherited from Iamblichus. In his second study, Hoffmann examines Simplicius' strategies of polemic and invective against Philoponus, particularly in the De Caelo, and Simplicius' view of the higher purpose of studying celestial matters. For Simplicius, even prosaic texts like the Categories could become an elevating and prayerful experience.\r\n\r\nSorabji, in an elegant contribution, shows how Simplicius solves a problem bequeathed by Aristotle by identifying prime matter with extension, which Aristotle did not do. Cordero challenges the idea of an Eleatic \"school\" while listing Simplicius\u2019 quotations of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. Blumenthal discusses Simplicius\u2019 doctrine of the soul, though his uncertainty about the authorship of the De Anima commentary (potentially by Priscian) limits the analysis. Luna traces Iamblichean roots in Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary.\r\n\r\nThe final sections include discussions of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius, with contributions by Ilsetraut Hadot, Leonardo Taran, and Dieter Harlfinger. Taran critiques Diels\u2019 edition of Simplicius' Physics commentary, showing its deficiencies due to reliance on unreliable collations and limited understanding of Neoplatonic doctrine. Harlfinger analyzes contamination in the manuscript tradition of the commentary on Books I-IV.\r\n\r\nThe collection concludes with two papers on Simplicius\u2019 influence in the medieval West, one by Fernand Boissier on Latin translations and the influence of the In De Caelo commentary and another by Pierre Hadot on the survival of the Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te commentary in the 15th to 17th centuries.\r\n\r\nOverall, this collection has given Simplicius much of his due as a major commentator and preserver of earlier Greek philosophy. While only three papers\u2014those by Blumenthal, Luna, and Sorabji\u2014discuss any distinctive doctrines of Simplicius, this is perhaps reasonable given that he does not claim originality. Most of what seems distinctive likely goes back to Iamblichus or Syrianus\/Proclus. Yet, it might one day be possible to produce a focused volume on his doctrinal innovations. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hje0CYeAY915LhU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":708,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"110","issue":"","pages":"244\u2013245"}},"sort":[1990]}

Studies in Xenophanes, 1990
By: Finkelberg, Aryeh
Title Studies in Xenophanes
Type Article
Language English
Date 1990
Journal Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
Volume 93
Pages 103-167
Categories no categories
Author(s) Finkelberg, Aryeh
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Here, our reconstruction of Theophrastus' account can be regarded as complete: we have determined his general approach to Xenophanes' twofold teaching and dwelt on the main points of his report on Xenophanes' monistic doctrine. The examination of Xenophanes' cosmological conception, however interesting and desirable, is a separate task which should be left for another opportunity. After such a lengthy discussion, one should perhaps briefly recapitulate the results arrived at, and the best way to do this seems to be to present the Theophrastean account in the form of the ordered series of statements reconstructed above. In this list, the sources from which a given statement is excerpted or on the basis of which it is formulated are referred to by the name of the author and the page and line(s) of the Diels-Kranz edition. Statements and parts of statements that are purely conjectural are italicized. [Ps.-Plut.; 122.15-18] Xenophanes of Colophon, who pursued a certain way of his own different from [that of] all those spoken of beforehand [i.e., the Milesians], allows neither coming-to-be nor destruction but says that the whole is eternally selfsame. [Simpl.; 121.28] He says that this One and Whole is God, saying thus (fr. 23). [Simpl.; 121.27-28] The mention of this Xenophanean opinion rather belongs to a study other than that concerned with natural philosophy [that is, in that concerned with first philosophy]. He says that God is ungenerated and eternal, which he proves as follows: [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.18-20] had it [the Whole or God] come to be, it is necessary for it not to be before this; but not being, it can never come to be: neither nought can produce anything nor can anything come to be by the agency of nought. That God is one, he proves so: [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.23-24] among gods, there can be no supremacy, for it does not suit the divine holiness that God should be under lordship; but were there many gods, there would be lords and subjects among them (perhaps also: or all of them would be lords of each other). [on the basis of Simpl.; 121.24-25; 122.3-6] He does not say whether God is finite or infinite. Nor does he say [on the basis of Simpl.; 121.25; 122.3-6] whether he is moved or unmoved. But [on the basis of Simpl.; 122.6-9] actually, he conceives of God as unmoved, for he calls him eternally selfsame and says (fr. 26). He says that God is thoroughly seeing, hearing, and thinking (fr. 24). He demonstrates this in the following way: [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.25-26] God is altogether free from any want; but had he seen, heard, and thought only in one part of him, he would be in want of these in another part; hence he sees, hears, and thinks wholly and not in one or another part of himself. [on the basis of Simpl.; 122.13-14] And he says that God governs all things by his mind, saying (fr. 25). [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.20-21; Aristocles; 126.6-8] Thus he throws out sense-perceptions while trusting logos alone. [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.15-18; Theophr. ap. Alex.; 219.31-33] The other way, that of accounting for the coming-to-be of existing things, he dismisses, declaring such accounts to be no more than opinion deprived of any certainty, saying this in such words (fr. 34). Nevertheless, he proposes some such opinion which he himself seems to adjudge plausible, as his own words show (fr. 35). [Theophr. ap. Alex; 219.31-33] But Parmenides, who came after him, took both ways [i.e., that of Xenophanes and that of the Milesians, cf. (1)]. For indeed, he both says that the whole is eternal and tries to account for the coming-to-be of existing things, not however thinking about both [ways] alike, but according to truth assuming the whole to be one, ungenerated, and spherical, while according to the opinion of the many, accounting for the coming-to-be of perceptible things by positing two principles: fire and earth, etc. This reconstructed account represents that of the first book of the Physical Opinions. Indeed, (1) is the counterpart of (14), which is explicitly related by Alexander to the first book. (2)–(10) also belong there, for they either come from Simplicius' report or correct and complement it where it is wrong or incomplete, while this report itself comes from the first book of the Physical Opinions. If Theophrastus' account was as I suggest, it seems to have been of great accuracy. True, it misrepresents Xenophanes' position in that his epistemic approach is interpreted in terms of the contrast logos:aistheseis, but this is the only major misinterpretation I can find in the account. On the whole, this is a precise report that moreover does not show any tendency to assimilate Xenophanes' teaching to that of Parmenides. Yet it would be hard to point out even one important Parmenidean doctrine which is not, in one way or another, rooted in Xenophanes' teaching. Such is, first and foremost, the Parmenidean idea of the intelligible unity of the sensible manifold, which in Xenophanes himself was, as we have suggested, the development of one of the facets of Anaximander's Apeiron. This is the view of unity as one of two aspects—true, the most essential, significant, and sublime—but nevertheless one aspect only of reality, complementary to its other aspect, that of the manifold. [conclusion p. 163-167]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"748","_score":null,"_source":{"id":748,"authors_free":[{"id":1113,"entry_id":748,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":113,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","free_first_name":"Aryeh","free_last_name":"Finkelberg","norm_person":{"id":113,"first_name":"Aryeh","last_name":"Finkelberg","full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1124815007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Studies in Xenophanes","main_title":{"title":"Studies in Xenophanes"},"abstract":"Here, our reconstruction of Theophrastus' account can be regarded as complete: we have determined his general approach to Xenophanes' twofold teaching and dwelt on the main points of his report on Xenophanes' monistic doctrine. The examination of Xenophanes' cosmological conception, however interesting and desirable, is a separate task which should be left for another opportunity. After such a lengthy discussion, one should perhaps briefly recapitulate the results arrived at, and the best way to do this seems to be to present the Theophrastean account in the form of the ordered series of statements reconstructed above. In this list, the sources from which a given statement is excerpted or on the basis of which it is formulated are referred to by the name of the author and the page and line(s) of the Diels-Kranz edition. Statements and parts of statements that are purely conjectural are italicized.\r\n\r\n [Ps.-Plut.; 122.15-18] Xenophanes of Colophon, who pursued a certain way of his own different from [that of] all those spoken of beforehand [i.e., the Milesians], allows neither coming-to-be nor destruction but says that the whole is eternally selfsame.\r\n [Simpl.; 121.28] He says that this One and Whole is God, saying thus (fr. 23).\r\n [Simpl.; 121.27-28] The mention of this Xenophanean opinion rather belongs to a study other than that concerned with natural philosophy [that is, in that concerned with first philosophy].\r\n He says that God is ungenerated and eternal, which he proves as follows: [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.18-20] had it [the Whole or God] come to be, it is necessary for it not to be before this; but not being, it can never come to be: neither nought can produce anything nor can anything come to be by the agency of nought.\r\n That God is one, he proves so: [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.23-24] among gods, there can be no supremacy, for it does not suit the divine holiness that God should be under lordship; but were there many gods, there would be lords and subjects among them (perhaps also: or all of them would be lords of each other).\r\n [on the basis of Simpl.; 121.24-25; 122.3-6] He does not say whether God is finite or infinite.\r\n Nor does he say [on the basis of Simpl.; 121.25; 122.3-6] whether he is moved or unmoved.\r\n But [on the basis of Simpl.; 122.6-9] actually, he conceives of God as unmoved, for he calls him eternally selfsame and says (fr. 26).\r\n He says that God is thoroughly seeing, hearing, and thinking (fr. 24). He demonstrates this in the following way: [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.25-26] God is altogether free from any want; but had he seen, heard, and thought only in one part of him, he would be in want of these in another part; hence he sees, hears, and thinks wholly and not in one or another part of himself.\r\n [on the basis of Simpl.; 122.13-14] And he says that God governs all things by his mind, saying (fr. 25).\r\n [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.20-21; Aristocles; 126.6-8] Thus he throws out sense-perceptions while trusting logos alone.\r\n [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.15-18; Theophr. ap. Alex.; 219.31-33] The other way, that of accounting for the coming-to-be of existing things, he dismisses, declaring such accounts to be no more than opinion deprived of any certainty, saying this in such words (fr. 34).\r\n Nevertheless, he proposes some such opinion which he himself seems to adjudge plausible, as his own words show (fr. 35).\r\n [Theophr. ap. Alex; 219.31-33] But Parmenides, who came after him, took both ways [i.e., that of Xenophanes and that of the Milesians, cf. (1)]. For indeed, he both says that the whole is eternal and tries to account for the coming-to-be of existing things, not however thinking about both [ways] alike, but according to truth assuming the whole to be one, ungenerated, and spherical, while according to the opinion of the many, accounting for the coming-to-be of perceptible things by positing two principles: fire and earth, etc.\r\n\r\nThis reconstructed account represents that of the first book of the Physical Opinions. Indeed, (1) is the counterpart of (14), which is explicitly related by Alexander to the first book. (2)\u2013(10) also belong there, for they either come from Simplicius' report or correct and complement it where it is wrong or incomplete, while this report itself comes from the first book of the Physical Opinions.\r\n\r\nIf Theophrastus' account was as I suggest, it seems to have been of great accuracy. True, it misrepresents Xenophanes' position in that his epistemic approach is interpreted in terms of the contrast logos:aistheseis, but this is the only major misinterpretation I can find in the account. On the whole, this is a precise report that moreover does not show any tendency to assimilate Xenophanes' teaching to that of Parmenides.\r\n\r\nYet it would be hard to point out even one important Parmenidean doctrine which is not, in one way or another, rooted in Xenophanes' teaching. Such is, first and foremost, the Parmenidean idea of the intelligible unity of the sensible manifold, which in Xenophanes himself was, as we have suggested, the development of one of the facets of Anaximander's Apeiron. This is the view of unity as one of two aspects\u2014true, the most essential, significant, and sublime\u2014but nevertheless one aspect only of reality, complementary to its other aspect, that of the manifold.\r\n[conclusion p. 163-167]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/H8YttvfJXlsVkrJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":113,"full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":748,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Harvard Studies in Classical Philology","volume":"93","issue":"","pages":"103-167"}},"sort":[1990]}

The Trouble with Fragrance, 1990
By: Ellis, John
Title The Trouble with Fragrance
Type Article
Language English
Date 1990
Journal Phronesis
Volume 35
Issue 3
Pages 290-302
Categories no categories
Author(s) Ellis, John
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
By 'in a subject' I mean what (a) is in something, not as a part, and (b) cannot exist separately from what it is in. (Aristotle, Categories 1a24-5) These lines have been extensively discussed in recent years. The crux of the debate is whether the existence clause (b) is to be construed in a way that commits Aristotle to particular, non-sharable properties. On the "traditional" interpretation, a property is in an individual thing as in a subject, say, Socrates, only if it cannot exist apart from Socrates. This implies that the properties of an individual thing are peculiar to it or non-sharable, in the sense that they cannot be in any other thing. The particular white in Socrates, for example, ceases to exist when he gets a tan. It does not move on to inhere in Callias or any other subject, nor is the white in Callias numerically the same white as the white in Socrates. Although both are white, perhaps even the same shade of white, nonetheless, they are numerically distinct particulars inhering in different individual things. Many recent commentators have tried to "rescue" Aristotle from the alleged commitment to such Stoutian particulars. Their strategy has been to weaken (b) so that the particular inherent property is not existentially dependent on the very particular substance it inheres in. G.E.L. Owen opened the debate by arguing that (b) can mean "cannot exist without something to contain it," and thus Aristotle is only committed to the view that particular properties need some substance or other in order to exist. A particular white, for example, would be a particular shade of white, which could, of course, be exemplified by more than one particular substance. The task I’ve set for myself in this paper is not to argue for either the weak or the strong interpretation of inherence in Aristotle. That is already a well-trodden path. Instead, I shall look at what the ancient commentators on Aristotle had to say on the subject. Which interpretation, the strong or the weak, do they support? My strategy is to focus on one of the many problems they consider, that of fragrance, and to see if their treatment of it yields an answer. The fragrance problem attacks the basis of Aristotle's ontology—the distinction between substance and accident. Didn’t Aristotle say that accidents cannot exist apart from that in which they inhere? But fragrances seem to travel to us from their subjects, and aren’t they accidents? In the attempts, from Porphyry (232–309 AD) to Elias (fl. 541), to save Aristotle’s ontology from this objection, we shall find, I hope to show, an interesting development in the complexity of the discussions. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the problem, the discussions move into psychological theory, and we find that, in order for his ontology to be saved, Aristotle’s psychological theory must be deepened. Concluding Remarks There seems to be a clear development in the way the commentators construed "in a subject." Starting with Porphyry’s tense solution, it is possible to see a gradual movement away from that solution and the weak construal it implies, toward the stronger reading implied by the other solutions. Ammonius introduces an alternative, the effluence solution, albeit without indicating his preference. His students, Philoponus and Simplicius, add further developments or modifications to his view: Simplicius, by rejecting the tense solution and offering new alternatives; and Philoponus, by turning the discussion more toward psychology and revealing both the conflict between the effluence and diosmic theories and his preference for the latter. This shift in the discussion toward psychology is evidenced by Olympiodorus, who responds to the fragrance problem only with alternative psychological theories, making no mention of the tense solution. Finally, Elias, although mentioning the tense solution, devotes most of his energy to evaluating the alternative psychological answers to the fragrance problem. [introduction p. 290-291; conclusion p. 302]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"751","_score":null,"_source":{"id":751,"authors_free":[{"id":1116,"entry_id":751,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":81,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ellis, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Ellis","norm_person":{"id":81,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Ellis","full_name":"Ellis, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Trouble with Fragrance","main_title":{"title":"The Trouble with Fragrance"},"abstract":"By 'in a subject' I mean what (a) is in something, not as a part, and (b) cannot exist separately from what it is in. (Aristotle, Categories 1a24-5)\r\n\r\nThese lines have been extensively discussed in recent years. The crux of the debate is whether the existence clause (b) is to be construed in a way that commits Aristotle to particular, non-sharable properties. On the \"traditional\" interpretation, a property is in an individual thing as in a subject, say, Socrates, only if it cannot exist apart from Socrates. This implies that the properties of an individual thing are peculiar to it or non-sharable, in the sense that they cannot be in any other thing. The particular white in Socrates, for example, ceases to exist when he gets a tan. It does not move on to inhere in Callias or any other subject, nor is the white in Callias numerically the same white as the white in Socrates. Although both are white, perhaps even the same shade of white, nonetheless, they are numerically distinct particulars inhering in different individual things.\r\n\r\nMany recent commentators have tried to \"rescue\" Aristotle from the alleged commitment to such Stoutian particulars. Their strategy has been to weaken (b) so that the particular inherent property is not existentially dependent on the very particular substance it inheres in. G.E.L. Owen opened the debate by arguing that (b) can mean \"cannot exist without something to contain it,\" and thus Aristotle is only committed to the view that particular properties need some substance or other in order to exist. A particular white, for example, would be a particular shade of white, which could, of course, be exemplified by more than one particular substance.\r\n\r\nThe task I\u2019ve set for myself in this paper is not to argue for either the weak or the strong interpretation of inherence in Aristotle. That is already a well-trodden path. Instead, I shall look at what the ancient commentators on Aristotle had to say on the subject. Which interpretation, the strong or the weak, do they support? My strategy is to focus on one of the many problems they consider, that of fragrance, and to see if their treatment of it yields an answer.\r\n\r\nThe fragrance problem attacks the basis of Aristotle's ontology\u2014the distinction between substance and accident. Didn\u2019t Aristotle say that accidents cannot exist apart from that in which they inhere? But fragrances seem to travel to us from their subjects, and aren\u2019t they accidents? In the attempts, from Porphyry (232\u2013309 AD) to Elias (fl. 541), to save Aristotle\u2019s ontology from this objection, we shall find, I hope to show, an interesting development in the complexity of the discussions. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the problem, the discussions move into psychological theory, and we find that, in order for his ontology to be saved, Aristotle\u2019s psychological theory must be deepened.\r\nConcluding Remarks\r\n\r\nThere seems to be a clear development in the way the commentators construed \"in a subject.\" Starting with Porphyry\u2019s tense solution, it is possible to see a gradual movement away from that solution and the weak construal it implies, toward the stronger reading implied by the other solutions. Ammonius introduces an alternative, the effluence solution, albeit without indicating his preference. His students, Philoponus and Simplicius, add further developments or modifications to his view: Simplicius, by rejecting the tense solution and offering new alternatives; and Philoponus, by turning the discussion more toward psychology and revealing both the conflict between the effluence and diosmic theories and his preference for the latter.\r\n\r\nThis shift in the discussion toward psychology is evidenced by Olympiodorus, who responds to the fragrance problem only with alternative psychological theories, making no mention of the tense solution. Finally, Elias, although mentioning the tense solution, devotes most of his energy to evaluating the alternative psychological answers to the fragrance problem. [introduction p. 290-291; conclusion p. 302]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HQWPG36viwyMCbr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":81,"full_name":"Ellis, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":751,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"35","issue":"3","pages":"290-302"}},"sort":[1990]}

The school of Alexander?, 1990
By: Sharples, Robert W., Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title The school of Alexander?
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1990
Published in Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Pages 83-111
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
Alexander of Aphrodisias was appointed by the emperors as a public teacher of Aristotelian philosophy at some time between 198 and 209 AD. As a public teacher, it is likely that he had, in some sense, a school. But trying to establish what happened in that school and how it functioned is comparable to the task we would face if we had to determine what went on in a philosophy department in a modern university based on a selection of books by the professor, a confused collection of his papers, the notes from which he lectured, and the essays of his students, with no obvious indication of which was which. We know a considerable amount about the Neoplatonic schools of the fifth and sixth centuries AD and the study of Aristotle’s writings in them. We know the place they had in the curriculum, the order in which they were read, and we can compare the ways in which different commentators approached the question of the relationship between the works of Aristotle and those of Plato. We can trace relations between teachers and their pupils, and we are sometimes told that a particular text is a pupil’s record of his teacher’s utterances. The very organization of the commentaries sometimes reflects and clarifies the requirements of the teaching context—in the division of a commentary into separate lectures and the placing of a general summary of a section of argument before the discussion of particular points. For the medieval period, too, we have copious information on the organization of teaching and study. With Alexander, matters are very different. We know the names of some of his teachers, and his surviving works provide evidence for his disagreements with them. We also know something of his disagreements with other philosophers of his own generation or the generation before, and we can trace—however controversially—his influence on later thinkers. But we do not know the name of a single one of his immediate pupils, and for all that we can tell, the influence of other writers on him might have been largely, and his influence on other writers entirely, through the medium of writing rather than personal encounter. After all, we are explicitly told that Alexander’s commentaries were among those read in Plotinus’ school. It is, however, in principle unlikely that any thinker in the ancient world would have communicated entirely through the written, rather than the spoken, word. Some of the writings attributed to Alexander are most naturally seen in the context of his teaching activities or debates within his circle. These writings include commentaries on Aristotelian works, treatises or monographs on particular topics such as those On the Soul and On Fate, and numerous short discussions. Three books of these collected discussions are entitled phusikai skholikai aporiai kai luseis—‘School-discussion problems and solutions on nature’; a fourth is titled Problems on Ethics but sub-titled, no doubt in imitation of the preceding three books when it was united with them, skholikai êthikai aporiai kai luseis—‘School-discussion problems and solutions on ethics.’ A further collection was transmitted as the second book of Alexander’s treatise On the Soul and labeled mantissa or ‘makeweight’ by the Berlin editor Bruns. Other texts essentially similar to those in these collections survive in Arabic, though not in Greek, and there is evidence to suggest that there were other collections now lost. The circumstances in which these collections were put together are unclear; it was not always expertly done, and while some of the titles attached to particular pieces seem to preserve valuable additional information, others are inept or unhelpful. Nor is it clear at what date the collections were assembled. It is not my concern here to provide a full enumeration of the works attributed to Alexander or to classify them in detail. That has been done elsewhere by both myself and others. Rather, I will proceed to a discussion of what the works can tell us about the context in which they arose. It will be helpful to start with a consideration of the relation of Alexander’s works to those of his predecessors, teachers, and contemporaries. [introduction p. 83-85]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1027","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1027,"authors_free":[{"id":1551,"entry_id":1027,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1552,"entry_id":1027,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The school of Alexander?","main_title":{"title":"The school of Alexander?"},"abstract":"Alexander of Aphrodisias was appointed by the emperors as a public teacher of Aristotelian philosophy at some time between 198 and 209 AD.\r\nAs a public teacher, it is likely that he had, in some sense, a school. But trying to establish what happened in that school and how it functioned is comparable to the task we would face if we had to determine what went on in a philosophy department in a modern university based on a selection of books by the professor, a confused collection of his papers, the notes from which he lectured, and the essays of his students, with no obvious indication of which was which.\r\n\r\nWe know a considerable amount about the Neoplatonic schools of the fifth and sixth centuries AD and the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings in them. We know the place they had in the curriculum, the order in which they were read, and we can compare the ways in which different commentators approached the question of the relationship between the works of Aristotle and those of Plato. We can trace relations between teachers and their pupils, and we are sometimes told that a particular text is a pupil\u2019s record of his teacher\u2019s utterances. The very organization of the commentaries sometimes reflects and clarifies the requirements of the teaching context\u2014in the division of a commentary into separate lectures and the placing of a general summary of a section of argument before the discussion of particular points.\r\n\r\nFor the medieval period, too, we have copious information on the organization of teaching and study.\r\nWith Alexander, matters are very different. We know the names of some of his teachers, and his surviving works provide evidence for his disagreements with them. We also know something of his disagreements with other philosophers of his own generation or the generation before, and we can trace\u2014however controversially\u2014his influence on later thinkers.\r\n\r\nBut we do not know the name of a single one of his immediate pupils, and for all that we can tell, the influence of other writers on him might have been largely, and his influence on other writers entirely, through the medium of writing rather than personal encounter. After all, we are explicitly told that Alexander\u2019s commentaries were among those read in Plotinus\u2019 school.\r\n\r\nIt is, however, in principle unlikely that any thinker in the ancient world would have communicated entirely through the written, rather than the spoken, word. Some of the writings attributed to Alexander are most naturally seen in the context of his teaching activities or debates within his circle.\r\n\r\nThese writings include commentaries on Aristotelian works, treatises or monographs on particular topics such as those On the Soul and On Fate, and numerous short discussions. Three books of these collected discussions are entitled phusikai skholikai aporiai kai luseis\u2014\u2018School-discussion problems and solutions on nature\u2019; a fourth is titled Problems on Ethics but sub-titled, no doubt in imitation of the preceding three books when it was united with them, skholikai \u00eathikai aporiai kai luseis\u2014\u2018School-discussion problems and solutions on ethics.\u2019\r\n\r\nA further collection was transmitted as the second book of Alexander\u2019s treatise On the Soul and labeled mantissa or \u2018makeweight\u2019 by the Berlin editor Bruns. Other texts essentially similar to those in these collections survive in Arabic, though not in Greek, and there is evidence to suggest that there were other collections now lost.\r\n\r\nThe circumstances in which these collections were put together are unclear; it was not always expertly done, and while some of the titles attached to particular pieces seem to preserve valuable additional information, others are inept or unhelpful. Nor is it clear at what date the collections were assembled.\r\n\r\nIt is not my concern here to provide a full enumeration of the works attributed to Alexander or to classify them in detail. That has been done elsewhere by both myself and others. Rather, I will proceed to a discussion of what the works can tell us about the context in which they arose. It will be helpful to start with a consideration of the relation of Alexander\u2019s works to those of his predecessors, teachers, and contemporaries. [introduction p. 83-85]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wgzq8ffCF70YlYd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1027,"section_of":1453,"pages":"83-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?, 1990
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1990
Published in Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Pages 113-123
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
[B]oth the content of Themistius’ works, and such evidence as we have of the commentators’ attitudes to him, show that he was predominantly a Peripatetic. In this he stood out against the tendencies of his time. His frequently expressed admiration for Plato does not invalidate this conclusion. Themistius may rightly claim to have been the last major figure in antiquity who was a genuine follower of Aristotle. For him, unlike his contemporaries, Plato does not surpass the master of those who know but he, and Socrates, ‘innanzi agli altri piu presso gli stanno’. [Conclusion, p. 123]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"875","_score":null,"_source":{"id":875,"authors_free":[{"id":1285,"entry_id":875,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1286,"entry_id":875,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?","main_title":{"title":"Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?"},"abstract":"[B]oth the content of Themistius\u2019 works, and such evidence as we \r\nhave of the commentators\u2019 attitudes to him, show that he was \r\npredominantly a Peripatetic. In this he stood out against the tendencies \r\nof his time. His frequently expressed admiration for Plato does not \r\ninvalidate this conclusion. Themistius may rightly claim to have been the \r\nlast major figure in antiquity who was a genuine follower of Aristotle. For \r\nhim, unlike his contemporaries, Plato does not surpass the master of \r\nthose who know but he, and Socrates, \u2018innanzi agli altri piu presso gli \r\nstanno\u2019. [Conclusion, p. 123]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j4M1Faq3An8bJ7v","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":875,"section_of":1453,"pages":"113-123","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

More on Zeno's "Forty logoi", 1990
By: Tarrant, Harold
Title More on Zeno's "Forty logoi"
Type Article
Language English
Date 1990
Journal Illinois Classical Studies
Volume 15
Issue 1
Pages 23-37
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In Illinois Classical Studies 11 (1986), 35-41, John Dillon presents material from Proclus' Commentary on the Parmenides in which he makes it clear that Proclus knew of a work purporting to be by Zeno, which contained forty logoi. This work was allegedly the one that "Zeno" had just read at the opening of the main narrative of Plato’s Parmenides (127c), and which Socrates subsequently challenges (127d-130a). Dillon presents the same material in his introduction to Proclus' In Parmenidem. Its relevance is no longer confined to the Neoplatonists, as Dillon believes that it is possible the Forty Logoi “at least contained genuine material, though perhaps worked over at a later date.” It threatens to have implications both for Eleatic studies and for the interpretation of the Parmenides itself. I believe that the issue must be tackled again, not merely because of Dillon’s judiciously aporetic conclusion, but because I fear that there are important points which have not yet been addressed. Firstly, from a passage not included in Dillon's survey but which seems to me to be relevant, it appears that the allegedly Zenonian work was known to much earlier, pre-Plotinian interpreters, who considered it important for the interpretation of the hypotheses of the second part of the Parmenides, at least down to 155e and possibly beyond. This increases the potential importance of the work, as well as marginally increasing its claim to be genuine; at least it was not a Neoplatonic forgery. Secondly, despite Proclus’ apparent familiarity with it, the work does not seem to clarify Plato's puzzling reference to the “first hypothesis of the first logos” at 127d7. One would have expected that consultation of the relevant text of Zeno would have done so, and this might be considered an obstacle to believing that the work is what it purports to be. Thirdly, there is a significant question of Proclus’ independence. There are some troubling features about the historical material in this commentary which are absent from his Timaeus commentary, for instance. Most relevant here is the rather scrappy way in which Parmenides himself has been quoted. On p. 665, the three short quotations from B8 are out of order; on p. 708, two of the same snippets from B8 have B5 (whose genuineness is less than certain) inserted between them. On p. 1152, we encounter seven tiny quotations, with the five from B8 this time being in the correct order, but with an impossible version of B3 inserted between B8.30 and B8.35-36; B4.1 then follows. The total number of lines quoted in whole or in part (excluding uncertain allusions) amounts to only 21 (9 of these from B8.25-36), but some lines appear three or more times (B8.4, 25, 29, 44). It is clear that Proclus remembered certain favorite phrases, and one doubts whether he was referring to any text, except possibly at p. 1134, where a passage of four lines is quoted. Even here, either Proclus or the scribes have failed us in the last line. Likewise, there is no need to suppose that he is referring at any point to the alleged work of Zeno. Certainly, he knows something about it, and he may well have had access to it and read it in the past. But I do not find anything in the text requiring that he consult the work as he writes. Furthermore, if we bear in mind that earlier interpreters had made use of the Forty Logoi, much of Proclus' material on the work could plausibly be attributed to borrowings from earlier commentaries. One commentary he certainly used is that of Plutarch of Athens, whose work on earlier interpreters Proclus evidently admired (p. 1061.18-20). We should not allow any admiration for Proclus as a philosopher, or even for the doxographic material in other commentaries, to lead us to suppose that his reports will be either original or reliable in this commentary. [introduction p. 23-24]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"408","_score":null,"_source":{"id":408,"authors_free":[{"id":546,"entry_id":408,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"More on Zeno's \"Forty logoi\"","main_title":{"title":"More on Zeno's \"Forty logoi\""},"abstract":"In Illinois Classical Studies 11 (1986), 35-41, John Dillon presents material from Proclus' Commentary on the Parmenides in which he makes it clear that Proclus knew of a work purporting to be by Zeno, which contained forty logoi. This work was allegedly the one that \"Zeno\" had just read at the opening of the main narrative of Plato\u2019s Parmenides (127c), and which Socrates subsequently challenges (127d-130a). Dillon presents the same material in his introduction to Proclus' In Parmenidem. Its relevance is no longer confined to the Neoplatonists, as Dillon believes that it is possible the Forty Logoi \u201cat least contained genuine material, though perhaps worked over at a later date.\u201d It threatens to have implications both for Eleatic studies and for the interpretation of the Parmenides itself.\r\n\r\nI believe that the issue must be tackled again, not merely because of Dillon\u2019s judiciously aporetic conclusion, but because I fear that there are important points which have not yet been addressed. Firstly, from a passage not included in Dillon's survey but which seems to me to be relevant, it appears that the allegedly Zenonian work was known to much earlier, pre-Plotinian interpreters, who considered it important for the interpretation of the hypotheses of the second part of the Parmenides, at least down to 155e and possibly beyond. This increases the potential importance of the work, as well as marginally increasing its claim to be genuine; at least it was not a Neoplatonic forgery.\r\n\r\nSecondly, despite Proclus\u2019 apparent familiarity with it, the work does not seem to clarify Plato's puzzling reference to the \u201cfirst hypothesis of the first logos\u201d at 127d7. One would have expected that consultation of the relevant text of Zeno would have done so, and this might be considered an obstacle to believing that the work is what it purports to be.\r\n\r\nThirdly, there is a significant question of Proclus\u2019 independence. There are some troubling features about the historical material in this commentary which are absent from his Timaeus commentary, for instance. Most relevant here is the rather scrappy way in which Parmenides himself has been quoted. On p. 665, the three short quotations from B8 are out of order; on p. 708, two of the same snippets from B8 have B5 (whose genuineness is less than certain) inserted between them. On p. 1152, we encounter seven tiny quotations, with the five from B8 this time being in the correct order, but with an impossible version of B3 inserted between B8.30 and B8.35-36; B4.1 then follows.\r\n\r\nThe total number of lines quoted in whole or in part (excluding uncertain allusions) amounts to only 21 (9 of these from B8.25-36), but some lines appear three or more times (B8.4, 25, 29, 44). It is clear that Proclus remembered certain favorite phrases, and one doubts whether he was referring to any text, except possibly at p. 1134, where a passage of four lines is quoted. Even here, either Proclus or the scribes have failed us in the last line. Likewise, there is no need to suppose that he is referring at any point to the alleged work of Zeno. Certainly, he knows something about it, and he may well have had access to it and read it in the past. But I do not find anything in the text requiring that he consult the work as he writes.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, if we bear in mind that earlier interpreters had made use of the Forty Logoi, much of Proclus' material on the work could plausibly be attributed to borrowings from earlier commentaries. One commentary he certainly used is that of Plutarch of Athens, whose work on earlier interpreters Proclus evidently admired (p. 1061.18-20). We should not allow any admiration for Proclus as a philosopher, or even for the doxographic material in other commentaries, to lead us to suppose that his reports will be either original or reliable in this commentary. [introduction p. 23-24]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YLhtdTiVc9rnvdt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":408,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Illinois Classical Studies","volume":"15","issue":"1","pages":"23-37"}},"sort":[1990]}

Les commentaires et la naissance de la critique littéraire, France/Italie (XIVe-XVIe siècles). Actes du Colloque international sur le Commentaire, Paris, mai 1988 , 1990
By: Mathieu-Castellani, Gisèle (Ed.), Plaisance, Michel (Ed.)
Title Les commentaires et la naissance de la critique littéraire, France/Italie (XIVe-XVIe siècles). Actes du Colloque international sur le Commentaire, Paris, mai 1988
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1990
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Aux Amateurs de Livres
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Mathieu-Castellani, Gisèle , Plaisance, Michel
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"160","_score":null,"_source":{"id":160,"authors_free":[{"id":2530,"entry_id":160,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mathieu-Castellani, Gis\u00e8le","free_first_name":"Gis\u00e8le","free_last_name":"Mathieu-Castellani","norm_person":null},{"id":2531,"entry_id":160,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Plaisance, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Plaisance","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Les commentaires et la naissance de la critique litt\u00e9raire, France\/Italie (XIVe-XVIe si\u00e8cles). Actes du Colloque international sur le Commentaire, Paris, mai 1988 ","main_title":{"title":"Les commentaires et la naissance de la critique litt\u00e9raire, France\/Italie (XIVe-XVIe si\u00e8cles). Actes du Colloque international sur le Commentaire, Paris, mai 1988 "},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GsDNaQjZ5QxBaVr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":160,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Aux Amateurs de Livres","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy, 1990
By: Mansfeld, Jaap
Title Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1990
Publication Place Assen – Maastricht
Publisher Van Gorcum
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mansfeld, Jaap
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The collection of nineteen articles in Jaap Mansfeld’s Studies in Early Greek Philosophy span the period from Anaximander to Socrates. Solutions to problems of interpretation are offered through a scrutiny of the sources, and also of the traditions of presentation and reception found in antiquity. Excursions in the history of scholarship help to diagnose discussions of which the primum movens may have been forgotten. General questions are treated, for instance the phenomenon of detheologization in doxographical texts, while problems relating to individual philosophers are also discussed. For example, the history of Anaximander’s cosmos, the status of Parmenides’ human world, and the reliability of what we know about the soul of Anaximenes, and of what Philoponus tells us about the behaviour of Democritus’ atoms. [offical abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"161","_score":null,"_source":{"id":161,"authors_free":[{"id":208,"entry_id":161,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy"},"abstract":"The collection of nineteen articles in Jaap Mansfeld\u2019s Studies in Early Greek Philosophy span the period from Anaximander to Socrates. Solutions to problems of interpretation are offered through a scrutiny of the sources, and also of the traditions of presentation and reception found in antiquity. Excursions in the history of scholarship help to diagnose discussions of which the primum movens may have been forgotten. General questions are treated, for instance the phenomenon of detheologization in doxographical texts, while problems relating to individual philosophers are also discussed. For example, the history of Anaximander\u2019s cosmos, the status of Parmenides\u2019 human world, and the reliability of what we know about the soul of Anaximenes, and of what Philoponus tells us about the behaviour of Democritus\u2019 atoms. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iTj9s6Qm1NZVce9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":161,"pubplace":"Assen \u2013 Maastricht","publisher":"Van Gorcum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Traduction commentée sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Première partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch), 1990
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Simplicius,
Title Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Traduction commentée sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Première partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1990
Publication Place Leiden - New York - København - Köln
Publisher Brill
Series Philosophia antiqua. A Series of studies on ancient Philosophy
Volume 50.1
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simplicius
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s) Hoffmann, Philippe (Hoffmann, Philippe ) , Hadot, Pierre(Hadot, Pierre) .
The French translation with commentary, the first in a modern language, allows historians of philosophy access to a fundamental work for the understanding of medieval and modern thought. They could also explore more easily the great variety of information contained in the commentary of Simplicius on the history of the exegis of the Catégories of Aristotle, and more generally on the history of comparative philosophy of Simplicius. They will discover some important aspects in the actual thought of Simplicius, which so far has hardly been explored. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"179","_score":null,"_source":{"id":179,"authors_free":[{"id":235,"entry_id":179,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1975,"entry_id":179,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","free_first_name":"Philippe ","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1976,"entry_id":179,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2359,"entry_id":179,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Premi\u00e8re partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Premi\u00e8re partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)"},"abstract":"The French translation with commentary, the first in a modern language, allows historians of philosophy access to a fundamental work for the understanding of medieval and modern thought. They could also explore more easily the great variety of information contained in the commentary of Simplicius on the history of the exegis of the Cat\u00e9gories of Aristotle, and more generally on the history of comparative philosophy of Simplicius. They will discover some important aspects in the actual thought of Simplicius, which so far has hardly been explored. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KyrBWf80BsqVFO8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":179,"pubplace":"Leiden - New York - K\u00f8benhavn - K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua. A Series of studies on ancient Philosophy","volume":"50.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

Les paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore à Simplicius, 1990
By: Tardieu, Michel
Title Les paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore à Simplicius
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1990
Publication Place Louvain
Publisher Peeters
Series Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des hautes études. Section des sciences religieuses
Volume 94
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tardieu, Michel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"197","_score":null,"_source":{"id":197,"authors_free":[{"id":254,"entry_id":197,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":331,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tardieu, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Tardieu","norm_person":{"id":331,"first_name":"Michel","last_name":"Tardieu","full_name":"Tardieu, Michel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140490701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Les paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AaZIIzIDKTRzpaF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":331,"full_name":"Tardieu, Michel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":197,"pubplace":"Louvain","publisher":"Peeters","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que de l'Ecole des hautes \u00e9tudes. Section des sciences religieuses","volume":"94","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence, 1990
By: Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1990
Publication Place London
Publisher Bloomsbury Academic
Edition No. 2
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told at book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some of the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest research. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar even to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators has been illustrated elsewhere. 1 Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as to set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further philosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. Th e importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, partly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek philosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical works. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the chapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due partly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire medieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle transformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian Church. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers. [authors abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"200","_score":null,"_source":{"id":200,"authors_free":[{"id":2155,"entry_id":200,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence"},"abstract":"The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told \r\nat book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some \r\nof the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest \r\nresearch. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar \r\neven to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators \r\nhas been illustrated elsewhere. 1 Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as \r\nto set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further \r\nphilosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. \r\n Th e importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the \r\nthought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, \r\npartly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek \r\nphilosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical \r\nworks. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the \r\nchapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due \r\npartly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire \r\nmedieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle \r\ntransformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian \r\nChurch. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in \r\nthe philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers. [authors abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":200,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

The development of Philoponus’ thought and its chronology, 1990
By: Verrycken, Koenraad, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title The development of Philoponus’ thought and its chronology
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1990
Published in Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Pages 233-274
Categories no categories
Author(s) Verrycken, Koenraad
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
The position I should like to defend is to some extent intermediate between that of Gudeman and that of Ilvrard. I think Ilvrard is right in rejecting the hypothesis of Philoponus' conversion. But I also think Gudeman was right in assuming—more or less conjecturally—a duality in Philoponus’ philosophical work. Both Gudeman and Ilvrard, however, pose the problem wrongly in terms of ‘religious conviction’ only. If Philoponus did not develop a Christian philosophy in his first philosophical period, that does not show that he must have been a pagan at that time. And if he was born a Christian, that does not establish that his philosophy must always have been Christian in character. Philosophy is one thing, religion another. In my opinion, the problem should first be posed on the purely philosophical level: what does the author say? Only afterwards can one try to ‘project’ the results of the philosophical analysis onto the levels of biography and psychology. This is the method I employ. To start with, I shall outline very briefly the main characteristics of the philosophical systems of ‘Philoponus 1’ and ‘Philoponus 2’, as I shall call them. Then I shall try to piece together something of what can reasonably be said about Philoponus’ biography. Thirdly, I shall propose the first sketch of a new solution to the problem of the chronology of the author’s Aristotelian commentaries. I shall finish with some remarks on the development of Philoponus 2. [introduction p. 236]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"449","_score":null,"_source":{"id":449,"authors_free":[{"id":601,"entry_id":449,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":347,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verrycken, Koenraad","free_first_name":"Koenraad","free_last_name":"Verrycken","norm_person":{"id":347,"first_name":"Koenraad","last_name":"Verrycken","full_name":"Verrycken, Koenraad","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1048689964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":602,"entry_id":449,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The development of Philoponus\u2019 thought and its chronology","main_title":{"title":"The development of Philoponus\u2019 thought and its chronology"},"abstract":"The position I should like to defend is to some extent intermediate between that of Gudeman and that of Ilvrard. I think Ilvrard is right in rejecting the hypothesis of Philoponus' conversion. But I also think Gudeman was right in assuming\u2014more or less conjecturally\u2014a duality in Philoponus\u2019 philosophical work. Both Gudeman and Ilvrard, however, pose the problem wrongly in terms of \u2018religious conviction\u2019 only. If Philoponus did not develop a Christian philosophy in his first philosophical period, that does not show that he must have been a pagan at that time. And if he was born a Christian, that does not establish that his philosophy must always have been Christian in character. Philosophy is one thing, religion another.\r\n\r\nIn my opinion, the problem should first be posed on the purely philosophical level: what does the author say? Only afterwards can one try to \u2018project\u2019 the results of the philosophical analysis onto the levels of biography and psychology. This is the method I employ.\r\n\r\nTo start with, I shall outline very briefly the main characteristics of the philosophical systems of \u2018Philoponus 1\u2019 and \u2018Philoponus 2\u2019, as I shall call them. Then I shall try to piece together something of what can reasonably be said about Philoponus\u2019 biography. Thirdly, I shall propose the first sketch of a new solution to the problem of the chronology of the author\u2019s Aristotelian commentaries. I shall finish with some remarks on the development of Philoponus 2. [introduction p. 236]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/d1kiVpaSlWKa7uY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":347,"full_name":"Verrycken, Koenraad","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":449,"section_of":1453,"pages":"233-274","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Traduction commentée sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule III: Préambule aux catégories; Commentaire au premier chapitre des catégories (p. 21 - 40, 13 Kalbfleisch), 1990
By: Simplicius, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.),
Title Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Traduction commentée sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule III: Préambule aux catégories; Commentaire au premier chapitre des catégories (p. 21 - 40, 13 Kalbfleisch)
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1990
Publication Place Leiden - New York - København - Köln
Publisher Brill
Series Philosophia antiqua. A Series of studies on ancient Philosophy
Volume 51
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simplicius
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s) Hoffmann, Philippe(Hoffmann, Philippe ) .
The French translation with commentary, the first in a modern language, allows historians of philosophy access to a fundamental work for the understanding of medieval and modern thought. They could also explore more easily the great variety of information contained in the commentary of Simplicius on the history of the exegis of the Catégories of Aristotle, and more generally on the history of comparative philosophy of Simplicius. They will discover some important aspects in the actual thought of Simplicius, which so far has hardly been explored. [official abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1447","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1447,"authors_free":[{"id":2363,"entry_id":1447,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2364,"entry_id":1447,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2366,"entry_id":1447,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule III: \tPr\u00e9ambule aux cat\u00e9gories; Commentaire au premier chapitre des cat\u00e9gories (p. 21 - 40, 13 Kalbfleisch)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule III: \tPr\u00e9ambule aux cat\u00e9gories; Commentaire au premier chapitre des cat\u00e9gories (p. 21 - 40, 13 Kalbfleisch)"},"abstract":"The French translation with commentary, the first in a modern language, allows historians of philosophy access to a fundamental work for the understanding of medieval and modern thought. They could also explore more easily the great variety of information contained in the commentary of Simplicius on the history of the exegis of the Cat\u00e9gories of Aristotle, and more generally on the history of comparative philosophy of Simplicius. They will discover some important aspects in the actual thought of Simplicius, which so far has hardly been explored. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KyrBWf80BsqVFO8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":1447,"pubplace":"Leiden - New York - K\u00f8benhavn - K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua. A Series of studies on ancient Philosophy","volume":"51","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence, 1990
By: Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1990
Publication Place London
Publisher Duckworth
Edition No. 1
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide. The importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1453","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1453,"authors_free":[{"id":2457,"entry_id":1453,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence"},"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

Recherches sur le néoplatonisme après Plotin, 1990
By: Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Title Recherches sur le néoplatonisme après Plotin
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1990
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Vrin
Series Histoire des doctrines de l’antiquité classique
Categories no categories
Author(s) Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Le Néoplatonisme après Plotin rassemble une vingtaine d'études parues depuis 1990, qui illustrent l'histoire de la philosophie platonicienne du IVe au VIe siècle, et au-delà. Depuis l'édition par Porphyre des Ennéades de Plotin jusqu'aux scholies du Corpus Dionysien, le propos de ce travail est de montrer les efforts successifs déployés par les philosophes néoplatoniciens pour intégrer le patrimoine philosophique et religieux de l'Antiquité grecque. Jamblique, sous le pseudonyme d'un prêtre égyptien, dialogue avec Porphyre pour exposer les antiques traditions égyptiennes et chaldéennes, Proclus, à la suite de son maître Syrianus, fait entendre l'accord d'Orphée, Pythagore et Platon avec les Oracles Chaldaïques, et pose le fondement de la théologie comme science. Dans ses hymnes, il livre sa dévotion au Soleil et aux dieux des Oracles Chaldaïques. Deux témoins précieux, le manuscrit alchimique de Venise et le Platon du Parisinus graecus 1807, témoignent de la survie du néoplatonisme que Marsile Ficin révélera à l'Europe par sa traduction latine des Ennéades, parue il y a tout juste 500 ans. Enfin l'hommage rendu à L. G. Westerink s'adresse à l'éditeur scientifique le plus fécond des auteurs néoplatoniciens. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1461","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1461,"authors_free":[{"id":2526,"entry_id":1461,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Recherches sur le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin","main_title":{"title":"Recherches sur le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin"},"abstract":"Le N\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin rassemble une vingtaine d'\u00e9tudes parues depuis 1990, qui illustrent l'histoire de la philosophie platonicienne du IVe au VIe si\u00e8cle, et au-del\u00e0. Depuis l'\u00e9dition par Porphyre des Enn\u00e9ades de Plotin jusqu'aux scholies du Corpus Dionysien, le propos de ce travail est de montrer les efforts successifs d\u00e9ploy\u00e9s par les philosophes n\u00e9oplatoniciens pour int\u00e9grer le patrimoine philosophique et religieux de l'Antiquit\u00e9 grecque. Jamblique, sous le pseudonyme d'un pr\u00eatre \u00e9gyptien, dialogue avec Porphyre pour exposer les antiques traditions \u00e9gyptiennes et chald\u00e9ennes, Proclus, \u00e0 la suite de son ma\u00eetre Syrianus, fait entendre l'accord d'Orph\u00e9e, Pythagore et Platon avec les Oracles Chalda\u00efques, et pose le fondement de la th\u00e9ologie comme science. Dans ses hymnes, il livre sa d\u00e9votion au Soleil et aux dieux des Oracles Chalda\u00efques. Deux t\u00e9moins pr\u00e9cieux, le manuscrit alchimique de Venise et le Platon du Parisinus graecus 1807, t\u00e9moignent de la survie du n\u00e9oplatonisme que Marsile Ficin r\u00e9v\u00e9lera \u00e0 l'Europe par sa traduction latine des Enn\u00e9ades, parue il y a tout juste 500 ans. Enfin l'hommage rendu \u00e0 L. G. Westerink s'adresse \u00e0 l'\u00e9diteur scientifique le plus f\u00e9cond des auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PXWKxSDEtCXXJtb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1461,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Histoire des doctrines de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1990]}

Pietro d’Abano e l’utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele, 1989
By: Federici-Vescovini, Graziella, Brams, Jozef (Ed.), Vanhamel, Willy (Ed.)
Title Pietro d’Abano e l’utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele
Type Book Section
Language Italian
Date 1989
Published in Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)
Pages 83-112
Categories no categories
Author(s) Federici-Vescovini, Graziella
Editor(s) Brams, Jozef , Vanhamel, Willy
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1136","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1136,"authors_free":[{"id":1710,"entry_id":1136,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":487,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Federici-Vescovini, Graziella","free_first_name":"Graziella","free_last_name":"Federici-Vescovini","norm_person":{"id":487,"first_name":"Graziella","last_name":"Federici-Vescovini","full_name":"Federici-Vescovini, Graziella","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128950552","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2478,"entry_id":1136,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":337,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brams, Jozef","free_first_name":"Jozef","free_last_name":"Brams","norm_person":{"id":337,"first_name":"Jozef","last_name":"Brams","full_name":"Brams, Jozef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145645712","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2479,"entry_id":1136,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":338,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","free_first_name":"Willy","free_last_name":"Vanhamel","norm_person":{"id":338,"first_name":"Willy","last_name":"Vanhamel","full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141109661","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pietro d\u2019Abano e l\u2019utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele","main_title":{"title":"Pietro d\u2019Abano e l\u2019utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Km4PwTvVAXA9uOv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":487,"full_name":"Federici-Vescovini, Graziella","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":337,"full_name":"Brams, Jozef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":338,"full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1136,"section_of":326,"pages":"83-112","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":326,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brams1989","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"T h e following articles are included in this volume: \"Moerbeke, traducteur et inter-\r\nprete: Un texte et une pensee\" by Gerard Verbeke (pp. 1-21); \"Guillaume de Moer-\r\nbeke et la cour pontificale\" by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (pp. 23-52); \"Note con-\r\ncernant certaines missions qui auraient ete confiees a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by\r\nWilly Vanhamel (pp. 53-56); \"Guillaume de Moerbeke et saint Thomas\" by Carlos\r\nSteel (pp. 57-82); \"Pietro d'Abano e l'utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di\r\nMoerbeke del commento di Simplicio al \/\/ De caelo di Aristotele\" by Graziella Federici\r\nVescovini (pp. 83-106); \"Quelques utilisateurs des textes rares de Moerbeke\r\n(Philopon, Tria opuscula) et particulierement Jacques de Viterbe\" by Louis Jacques\r\nBataillon (pp. 107-12); \"Quelques remarques codicologiques et paleographiques\r\nau sujet du ms. Vaticano Ottob. lat. 1850\" by Robert Wielockx (pp. 113-33);\r\n\"La liste des ceuvres d'Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr. 100: Un\r\nautographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 135-83);\r\n\"Note concernant la collation d'un deuxieme manuscrit grec de la Physique\r\npar Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Jozef Brams and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp.\r\n185-92); \"La 'Recensio Matritensis' de la Physique\" by Jozef Brams (pp. 193-220);\r\n\"La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (Analisi del\r\nlibro I)\" by Pietro Rossi (pp. 221-45); \"L'attribution de la Translatio nova du De\r\ngenerations et corruptione a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Joanna Judycka (pp. 247-51);\r\n\"Iudicialia ad Syrum: Une traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke du Quadripartitum\r\nde Cl. Ptol\u00a3mee\" by Luc Anthonis (pp. 253-55); \"Methode de traduction et\r\nproblemes de chronologie\" by Fernand Bossier (pp. 257-94); \"L'usage des mots\r\nhybrides greco-latins par Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp.\r\n295-99); and \"Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Willy Vanhamel\r\n(pp. 301-83).","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kM52uB2YgiCytgt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":326,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1989]}

Le thème de la grande année d'Héraclite aux Stoiciens, 1989
By: Bels, Jacques
Title Le thème de la grande année d'Héraclite aux Stoiciens
Type Article
Language French
Date 1989
Journal Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume 7
Issue 2
Pages 169-183
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bels, Jacques
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
D’Héraclite aux stoïciens, en passant par Platon qui adopte un point de vue analogue à celui de l’Éphésien, le discours sur la Grande Année est au cœur même de la conception philosophique, même s’il subit une modification dans son appréhension. En effet, à une lecture (re)générante, le stoïcisme substitue une perspective finaliste quand il privilégie le lien Grande Année-ekpyrosis. Cette accentuation d’une Grande Année conçue comme limite, au détriment de la régénération, se marque également dans la liaison ekpyrosis-fin de la survie limitée. En effet, selon les stoïciens, à la disparition des corps, la partie spirituelle subsiste un certain temps avant de disparaître à son tour. Conséquence logique de la thèse selon laquelle ce qui est engendré doit disparaître, cette mort de l’âme correspond, chez Cléanthe et Chrysippe, à la conflagration universelle. Pour le premier, en effet, toutes les âmes survivent jusqu’à l’embrasement final, tandis que, pour le second, seules les âmes des sages connaissent ce privilège, celles des "insensés" disparaissant plus rapidement. Dès lors, quand il établit une parenté entre les stoïciens et Héraclite, Simplicius a partiellement raison : ces penseurs ont posé l’existence d’une Grande Année. Il oublie simplement de préciser qu’ils lui ont assigné des priorités différentes. [conclusion p. 183]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"831","_score":null,"_source":{"id":831,"authors_free":[{"id":1235,"entry_id":831,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":421,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bels, Jacques","free_first_name":"Jacques","free_last_name":"Bels","norm_person":{"id":421,"first_name":"Jacques","last_name":"Bels","full_name":"Bels, Jacques","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le th\u00e8me de la grande ann\u00e9e d'H\u00e9raclite aux Stoiciens","main_title":{"title":"Le th\u00e8me de la grande ann\u00e9e d'H\u00e9raclite aux Stoiciens"},"abstract":"D\u2019H\u00e9raclite aux sto\u00efciens, en passant par Platon qui adopte un point de vue analogue \u00e0 celui de l\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e9sien, le discours sur la Grande Ann\u00e9e est au c\u0153ur m\u00eame de la conception philosophique, m\u00eame s\u2019il subit une modification dans son appr\u00e9hension. En effet, \u00e0 une lecture (re)g\u00e9n\u00e9rante, le sto\u00efcisme substitue une perspective finaliste quand il privil\u00e9gie le lien Grande Ann\u00e9e-ekpyrosis. Cette accentuation d\u2019une Grande Ann\u00e9e con\u00e7ue comme limite, au d\u00e9triment de la r\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9ration, se marque \u00e9galement dans la liaison ekpyrosis-fin de la survie limit\u00e9e. En effet, selon les sto\u00efciens, \u00e0 la disparition des corps, la partie spirituelle subsiste un certain temps avant de dispara\u00eetre \u00e0 son tour.\r\n\r\nCons\u00e9quence logique de la th\u00e8se selon laquelle ce qui est engendr\u00e9 doit dispara\u00eetre, cette mort de l\u2019\u00e2me correspond, chez Cl\u00e9anthe et Chrysippe, \u00e0 la conflagration universelle. Pour le premier, en effet, toutes les \u00e2mes survivent jusqu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019embrasement final, tandis que, pour le second, seules les \u00e2mes des sages connaissent ce privil\u00e8ge, celles des \"insens\u00e9s\" disparaissant plus rapidement.\r\n\r\nD\u00e8s lors, quand il \u00e9tablit une parent\u00e9 entre les sto\u00efciens et H\u00e9raclite, Simplicius a partiellement raison : ces penseurs ont pos\u00e9 l\u2019existence d\u2019une Grande Ann\u00e9e. Il oublie simplement de pr\u00e9ciser qu\u2019ils lui ont assign\u00e9 des priorit\u00e9s diff\u00e9rentes. [conclusion p. 183]","btype":3,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Wt3OVL4zzPJWT2a","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":421,"full_name":"Bels, Jacques","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":831,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"7","issue":"2","pages":"169-183"}},"sort":[1989]}

Theophrast und der Beginn des Archereferats von Simplikios Physikkommentar, 1989
By: Wiesner, Jürgen
Title Theophrast und der Beginn des Archereferats von Simplikios Physikkommentar
Type Article
Language German
Date 1989
Journal Hermes
Volume 117
Issue 3
Pages 288-303
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Für die Tradierung der umstrittenen Xenophanes-Prädikate ergibt sich also folgendes Bild: Theophrasts Urteil, dass Xenophanes sein Prinzip weder eindeutig als begrenzt noch unbegrenzt, weder eindeutig als bewegt noch unbewegt benannt habe, schließt referierende Einzelangaben über diese uneinheitlichen Lehrmeinungen des Kolophoniers nicht aus. Das negative „οὔτε-οὔτε“-Urteil Theophrasts ist in der Vorlage von MXG und Simplikios (In Phys. 22,30–23,9) später missverstanden worden: Für den dort vorliegenden positiven „οὔτε-οὔτε“-Ausschluss (das Prinzip sei weder begrenzt noch unbegrenzt, weder bewegt noch unbewegt) wurde eine auf späteren Konzepten beruhende Begründung hinzugefügt. Simplikios hat sich von der Quelle, die ihm und MXG vorlag, irreführen lassen und die äußerlich gleichlautende Auskunft Theophrasts, die er In Phys. 22,26 zitiert, in ihrem wahren Gehalt verkannt. Daher hat er die Argumentation, die aus der mit MXG gemeinsamen Quelle stammt und die gar nicht zu Theophrasts negativem Urteil passt, ab 22,31 folgen lassen. Die Lehrmeinung vom begrenzten, kugeligen Gott gelangte von Theophrast in die Doxographie und zu Alexander. Auch Simplikios kennt eine solche Konzeption aus dem Eresier (In Phys. 28,4 ff.). Er unternimmt eine Harmonisierung des „begrenzt“ mit der „οὔτε-οὔτε“-Bestimmung (29,7 ff.). Da er bei Theophrast sowohl die (von ihm fälschlich als positiver Ausschluss verstandene) „οὔτε-οὔτε“-Bestimmung als auch das einfache Prädikat „begrenzt“ las, könnte er sogar durch den Eresier zu seiner Harmonisierung angeregt worden sein. [conclusion p. 302-303]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"835","_score":null,"_source":{"id":835,"authors_free":[{"id":1239,"entry_id":835,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrast und der Beginn des Archereferats von Simplikios Physikkommentar","main_title":{"title":"Theophrast und der Beginn des Archereferats von Simplikios Physikkommentar"},"abstract":"F\u00fcr die Tradierung der umstrittenen Xenophanes-Pr\u00e4dikate ergibt sich also folgendes Bild:\r\n\r\n Theophrasts Urteil, dass Xenophanes sein Prinzip weder eindeutig als begrenzt noch unbegrenzt, weder eindeutig als bewegt noch unbewegt benannt habe, schlie\u00dft referierende Einzelangaben \u00fcber diese uneinheitlichen Lehrmeinungen des Kolophoniers nicht aus.\r\n\r\n Das negative \u201e\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5-\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\u201c-Urteil Theophrasts ist in der Vorlage von MXG und Simplikios (In Phys. 22,30\u201323,9) sp\u00e4ter missverstanden worden: F\u00fcr den dort vorliegenden positiven \u201e\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5-\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\u201c-Ausschluss (das Prinzip sei weder begrenzt noch unbegrenzt, weder bewegt noch unbewegt) wurde eine auf sp\u00e4teren Konzepten beruhende Begr\u00fcndung hinzugef\u00fcgt.\r\n\r\n Simplikios hat sich von der Quelle, die ihm und MXG vorlag, irref\u00fchren lassen und die \u00e4u\u00dferlich gleichlautende Auskunft Theophrasts, die er In Phys. 22,26 zitiert, in ihrem wahren Gehalt verkannt. Daher hat er die Argumentation, die aus der mit MXG gemeinsamen Quelle stammt und die gar nicht zu Theophrasts negativem Urteil passt, ab 22,31 folgen lassen.\r\n\r\n Die Lehrmeinung vom begrenzten, kugeligen Gott gelangte von Theophrast in die Doxographie und zu Alexander. Auch Simplikios kennt eine solche Konzeption aus dem Eresier (In Phys. 28,4 ff.). Er unternimmt eine Harmonisierung des \u201ebegrenzt\u201c mit der \u201e\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5-\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\u201c-Bestimmung (29,7 ff.). Da er bei Theophrast sowohl die (von ihm f\u00e4lschlich als positiver Ausschluss verstandene) \u201e\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5-\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\u201c-Bestimmung als auch das einfache Pr\u00e4dikat \u201ebegrenzt\u201c las, k\u00f6nnte er sogar durch den Eresier zu seiner Harmonisierung angeregt worden sein. [conclusion p. 302-303]","btype":3,"date":"1989","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GgDE7e58wFISvqX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":835,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"117","issue":"3","pages":"288-303"}},"sort":[1989]}

Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?, 1989
By: Mansfeld, Jaap, Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Steinmetz, Peter (Ed.)
Title Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1989
Published in Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos
Pages 133-158
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mansfeld, Jaap
Editor(s) Fortenbaugh, William W. , Steinmetz, Peter
Translator(s)
Unter Hinweis auf Cicero, Lucullus (= Academica priora II) 118 und 123, Tusculanae disputationes I 18 ff. und De natura deorum I 25 ff. hat Hermann Diels diese Frage bekanntlich bejaht. Die wichtigste Stelle, auf die ich mich aus mehreren Gründen beschränke, ist dabei der Passus über die Prinzipien (Luc. 118), wo der Dissens (dissensio, Luc. 117) der Philosophen von Thales bis zu Platon und den Pythagoreern kritisiert wird. Diels hat hier ganz auffallend argumentiert. Zum einen hat er, teilweise zu Recht, auf Übereinstimmungen zwischen Luc. 118 und den entsprechenden Theophrast-Fragmenten bzw. Paraphrasen in Simplikios’ Kommentar zur aristotelischen Physik hingewiesen, die Usener und er den Physica opinionum zugewiesen haben. Als nächstes aber hat er Luc. 119–121 über die stoische Theorie der Vorsehung (SVF I 92 u. 1161) und über Aristoteles (De philos. fr. 20 Ross) und Stratons (fr. 32 Wehrli) entgegengesetzte Auffassungen ausgeklammert, weil dieses Stück nicht auf Theophrast zurückgeführt werden könne. Aus den nachfolgenden Paragraphen, die über verschiedene Ansichten von den Himmelskörpern und der Erde referieren, hat er schließlich 123 „Hiketas von Syrakus, wie Theophrast sagt“ (Hicetas Syracosius, ut ait Theophrastus …) usw. wieder als Beweis dafür angezogen, dass die doxographische Übersicht zur Astronomie aus den Physica opinionum stamme. In der Nachfolge Krisches hatte schließlich schon Diels zu Recht bemerkt, dass Ciceros unmittelbare Quelle ein Akademiker, wohl ein Karneadesschüler, sein müsse. Das Textstück über Hiketas (auch abgedruckt in Vorsokr. 51.1) hat er als Physica opinionum fr. 18 aufgenommen (DG 492–3). Es ist dies der einzige Cicerotext in der betreffenden Dielsschen Sammlung. [introduction p. 133]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"930","_score":null,"_source":{"id":930,"authors_free":[{"id":1375,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1376,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1377,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":378,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Steinmetz","norm_person":{"id":378,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Steinmetz","full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11891913X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?","main_title":{"title":"Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?"},"abstract":"Unter Hinweis auf Cicero, Lucullus (= Academica priora II) 118 und 123, Tusculanae disputationes I 18 ff. und De natura deorum I 25 ff. hat Hermann Diels diese Frage bekanntlich bejaht. Die wichtigste Stelle, auf die ich mich aus mehreren Gr\u00fcnden beschr\u00e4nke, ist dabei der Passus \u00fcber die Prinzipien (Luc. 118), wo der Dissens (dissensio, Luc. 117) der Philosophen von Thales bis zu Platon und den Pythagoreern kritisiert wird. Diels hat hier ganz auffallend argumentiert.\r\n\r\nZum einen hat er, teilweise zu Recht, auf \u00dcbereinstimmungen zwischen Luc. 118 und den entsprechenden Theophrast-Fragmenten bzw. Paraphrasen in Simplikios\u2019 Kommentar zur aristotelischen Physik hingewiesen, die Usener und er den Physica opinionum zugewiesen haben. Als n\u00e4chstes aber hat er Luc. 119\u2013121 \u00fcber die stoische Theorie der Vorsehung (SVF I 92 u. 1161) und \u00fcber Aristoteles (De philos. fr. 20 Ross) und Stratons (fr. 32 Wehrli) entgegengesetzte Auffassungen ausgeklammert, weil dieses St\u00fcck nicht auf Theophrast zur\u00fcckgef\u00fchrt werden k\u00f6nne.\r\n\r\nAus den nachfolgenden Paragraphen, die \u00fcber verschiedene Ansichten von den Himmelsk\u00f6rpern und der Erde referieren, hat er schlie\u00dflich 123 \u201eHiketas von Syrakus, wie Theophrast sagt\u201c (Hicetas Syracosius, ut ait Theophrastus \u2026) usw. wieder als Beweis daf\u00fcr angezogen, dass die doxographische \u00dcbersicht zur Astronomie aus den Physica opinionum stamme.\r\n\r\nIn der Nachfolge Krisches hatte schlie\u00dflich schon Diels zu Recht bemerkt, dass Ciceros unmittelbare Quelle ein Akademiker, wohl ein Karneadessch\u00fcler, sein m\u00fcsse. Das Textst\u00fcck \u00fcber Hiketas (auch abgedruckt in Vorsokr. 51.1) hat er als Physica opinionum fr. 18 aufgenommen (DG 492\u20133). Es ist dies der einzige Cicerotext in der betreffenden Dielsschen Sammlung. [introduction p. 133]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MGhjgtg4bJWxFhu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":378,"full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":930,"section_of":334,"pages":"133-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":334,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1989b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"Cicero is best known for his political speeches. His Catilinarian orations are regularly studied in third or fourth year Latin; his self-proclaimed role as savior of the Republic is much discussed in courses on Roman history. But, however fascinating such material may be, there is another side to Cicero which is equally important and only now receiving the attention it deserves. This is Cicero's interest in Hellenistic thought. As a young man he studied philosophy in Greece; throughout his life he maintained a keen interest in intellectual history; and during periods of political inactivity - especially in his last years as the Republic collapsed - he wrote treatises that today are invaluable sources for our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, including the School of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe essays collected in this volume deal with these treatises and in particular with Cicero's knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy. They ask such questions as: Did Cicero-know Aristotle first hand, or was the corpus Aristotelicum unavailable to him and his contemporaries? Did Cicero have access to the writings of Theophrastus, and in general did he know the post-Aristotelians whose works are all but lost to us? When Cicero reports the views of early philosophers, is he a reliable witness, and is he conveying important information? These and other fundamental questions are asked with special reference to traditional areas of Greek thought: logic and rhetoric, politics and ethics, physics, psychology, and theology. The answers are various, but the overall impression is clear: Cicero himself was a highly intelligent, well educated Roman, whose treatises contain significant material. Scholars working on Peripatetic thought and on the Hellenistic period as a whole cannot afford to ignore them.\r\n\r\nThis fourth volume in the Rutgers University Studies in Classic Humanities series deals with Cicero, orator and writer of the late Roman Republic. Interest in Cicero arose out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking based at Rutgers dedicated to collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus. This collection will be of value to philologists, classicists, philosophers, as well as those interested in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":334,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1989]}

Ionian Philosophy, 1989
By: Boudouris, Konstantin, J. (Ed.)
Title Ionian Philosophy
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1989
Publication Place Athen
Publisher International Association for Greek Philosophy and Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture
Series Studies in Greek Philosophy
Volume 1
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Boudouris, Konstantin, J.
Translator(s)
‘The articles in this volume are, in the main, the texts of papers read either in full or in part at the First International Conference on Greek Philosophy (Samos 1988)’ (from the editor’s Preface). Appropriately to such a first conference, it was devoted to the beginnings of philosophy in Greece and, more specifically, in Ionia itself. The volume includes forty- seven papers dealing with all the major figures of Ionian philosophy, from the Milesians to Anaxagoras. Pythagoras, the most illustrious native of Samos, and the Pythagoreans (technically considered an ‘Italian’ sect, but included by courtesy in the theme of the conference), attract the attention of seven scholars. The other notable Samian, Melissus, is the subject of only one contribution, by D. Furley, possibly because Melissus is usually BOOK REVIEWS 141classified by the doxographers as an Eleatic. Xenophanes of Colophon is dealt with in five of the articles. Perhaps not surprisingly, almost half of the papers deal with Heraclitus of Ephesus, just across the water from Samos. Among those excluded from this book are the Italians Parmenides, Zeno and Empedocles, and the atomists of Abdera" [Review Scolnicov]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"238","_score":null,"_source":{"id":238,"authors_free":[{"id":2413,"entry_id":238,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":328,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin, J.","free_first_name":"Konstantin, J.","free_last_name":"Boudouris","norm_person":{"id":328,"first_name":"Konstantin J.","last_name":"Boudouris,","full_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1041800053","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ionian Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Ionian Philosophy"},"abstract":"\u2018The articles in this volume are, in the main, the texts of papers read either in full or in part at the First International Conference on Greek Philosophy (Samos 1988)\u2019 (from the editor\u2019s Preface). Appropriately to such a first conference, it was devoted to the beginnings of philosophy in Greece and, more specifically, in Ionia itself. The volume includes forty- seven papers dealing with all the major figures of Ionian philosophy, from the Milesians to Anaxagoras. Pythagoras, the most illustrious native of Samos, and the Pythagoreans (technically considered an \u2018Italian\u2019 sect, but included by courtesy in the theme of the conference), attract the attention of seven scholars. The other notable Samian, Melissus, is the subject of only one contribution, by D. Furley, possibly because Melissus is usually\r\nBOOK REVIEWS 141classified by the doxographers as an Eleatic. Xenophanes of Colophon is dealt with in five of the articles. Perhaps not surprisingly, almost half of the papers deal with Heraclitus of Ephesus, just across the water from Samos. Among those excluded from this book are the Italians Parmenides, Zeno and Empedocles, and the atomists of Abdera\" [Review Scolnicov]","btype":4,"date":"1989","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9oSZ8qRrH4iopVv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":328,"full_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":238,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"International Association for Greek Philosophy and Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture","series":"Studies in Greek Philosophy","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1989]}

Plutarco di Atene. L’Uno, l’Anima, le Forme, 1989
By: Taormina, Daniela
Title Plutarco di Atene. L’Uno, l’Anima, le Forme
Type Monograph
Language Italian
Date 1989
Publication Place Rom
Publisher Università di Catania, Catania und L’Erma di Bretschneider
Categories no categories
Author(s) Taormina, Daniela
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Questo volume ottavo della Collana "Symbolon" è frutto di lunga e intelligente fatica di ricerca e di studio da parte di una delle mie più valenti allieve e collaboratrici, la dott. D. P. Taormina, che ha il merito di avere fornito, con i risultati di questo suo lavoro, la prima monografia completa, corredata dalla raccolta delle fonti mai prima d'ora compiuta (testo, traduzione e ampio commento), su uno dei più decisivi, ancorché poco studiati, anelli di collegamento tra il primo e l'ultimo neoplatonismo, ovverossia tra l'eredità immediata di Plotino e l'esplosione dell'attività speculativa più matura e sistematica della filosofia neoplatonica. Alla fine del IV secolo d. C., quando il pensiero cristiano era ormai divenuto adulto ad opera di pensatori quali Origene, Mario Vittorino e Agostino (tutti debitori del platonismo e del neoplatonismo), si ebbe ad Atene, nella vecchia e gloriosa culla della civiltà antica, una rinascita della tradizione platonica ad opera di un pensatore destinato a divenire maestro degli ultimi maestri di platonismo dell'antichità. Plutarco di Atene, finora considerato piu un termine di continuità storica che un caposaldo dello sviluppo del pensiero neoplatonico, esce dalla ricerca della Taormina in tutta la sua dimensione teoretica di esegeta e filosofo che ha contribuito a preparare (assieme al suo più famoso primo discepolo, Siriano) le fondamenta piu solide dell'ultima sistemazione del platonismo (Proclo e Damscio)... [offical abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"247","_score":null,"_source":{"id":247,"authors_free":[{"id":1941,"entry_id":247,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":431,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Taormina, Daniela","free_first_name":"Daniela","free_last_name":"Taormina","norm_person":{"id":431,"first_name":"Daniela Patrizia","last_name":"Taormina","full_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305185","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plutarco di Atene. L\u2019Uno, l\u2019Anima, le Forme","main_title":{"title":"Plutarco di Atene. L\u2019Uno, l\u2019Anima, le Forme"},"abstract":"Questo volume ottavo della Collana \"Symbolon\" \u00e8 frutto di lunga e intelligente fatica di ricerca e di studio da parte di una delle mie pi\u00f9 valenti allieve e collaboratrici, la dott. D. P. Taormina, che ha il merito di avere fornito, con i risultati di questo suo lavoro, la prima monografia completa, corredata dalla raccolta delle fonti mai prima d'ora compiuta (testo, traduzione e ampio commento), su uno dei pi\u00f9 decisivi, ancorch\u00e9 poco studiati, anelli di collegamento tra il primo e l'ultimo neoplatonismo, ovverossia tra l'eredit\u00e0 immediata di Plotino e l'esplosione dell'attivit\u00e0 speculativa pi\u00f9 matura e sistematica della filosofia neoplatonica. Alla fine del IV secolo d. C., quando il pensiero cristiano era ormai divenuto adulto ad opera di pensatori quali Origene, Mario Vittorino e Agostino (tutti debitori del platonismo e del neoplatonismo), si ebbe ad Atene, nella vecchia e gloriosa culla della civilt\u00e0 antica, una rinascita della tradizione platonica ad opera di un pensatore destinato a divenire maestro degli ultimi maestri di platonismo dell'antichit\u00e0. Plutarco di Atene, finora considerato piu un termine di continuit\u00e0 storica che un caposaldo dello sviluppo del pensiero neoplatonico, esce dalla ricerca della Taormina in tutta la sua dimensione teoretica di esegeta e filosofo che ha contribuito a preparare (assieme al suo pi\u00f9 famoso primo discepolo, Siriano) le fondamenta piu solide dell'ultima sistemazione del platonismo (Proclo e Damscio)... [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1989","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sgSfZUGUBZdA26p","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":431,"full_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":247,"pubplace":"Rom","publisher":"Universit\u00e0 di Catania, Catania und L\u2019Erma di Bretschneider","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1989]}

Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286), 1989
By: Brams, Jozef (Ed.), Vanhamel, Willy (Ed.)
Title Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1989
Publication Place Leuven
Publisher Leuven University Press
Series Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1
Volume 7
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Brams, Jozef , Vanhamel, Willy
Translator(s)
T h e following articles are included in this volume: "Moerbeke, traducteur et inter- prete: Un texte et une pensee" by Gerard Verbeke (pp. 1-21); "Guillaume de Moer- beke et la cour pontificale" by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (pp. 23-52); "Note con- cernant certaines missions qui auraient ete confiees a Guillaume de Moerbeke" by Willy Vanhamel (pp. 53-56); "Guillaume de Moerbeke et saint Thomas" by Carlos Steel (pp. 57-82); "Pietro d'Abano e l'utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del commento di Simplicio al // De caelo di Aristotele" by Graziella Federici Vescovini (pp. 83-106); "Quelques utilisateurs des textes rares de Moerbeke (Philopon, Tria opuscula) et particulierement Jacques de Viterbe" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp. 107-12); "Quelques remarques codicologiques et paleographiques au sujet du ms. Vaticano Ottob. lat. 1850" by Robert Wielockx (pp. 113-33); "La liste des ceuvres d'Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr. 100: Un autographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke" by Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 135-83); "Note concernant la collation d'un deuxieme manuscrit grec de la Physique par Guillaume de Moerbeke" by Jozef Brams and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 185-92); "La 'Recensio Matritensis' de la Physique" by Jozef Brams (pp. 193-220); "La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (Analisi del libro I)" by Pietro Rossi (pp. 221-45); "L'attribution de la Translatio nova du De generations et corruptione a Guillaume de Moerbeke" by Joanna Judycka (pp. 247-51); "Iudicialia ad Syrum: Une traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke du Quadripartitum de Cl. Ptol£mee" by Luc Anthonis (pp. 253-55); "Methode de traduction et problemes de chronologie" by Fernand Bossier (pp. 257-94); "L'usage des mots hybrides greco-latins par Guillaume de Moerbeke" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp. 295-99); and "Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke" by Willy Vanhamel (pp. 301-83).

{"_index":"sire","_id":"326","_score":null,"_source":{"id":326,"authors_free":[{"id":416,"entry_id":326,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":337,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brams, Jozef","free_first_name":"Jozef","free_last_name":"Brams","norm_person":{"id":337,"first_name":"Jozef","last_name":"Brams","full_name":"Brams, Jozef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145645712","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":417,"entry_id":326,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":338,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","free_first_name":"Willy","free_last_name":"Vanhamel","norm_person":{"id":338,"first_name":"Willy","last_name":"Vanhamel","full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141109661","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)","main_title":{"title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)"},"abstract":"T h e following articles are included in this volume: \"Moerbeke, traducteur et inter-\r\nprete: Un texte et une pensee\" by Gerard Verbeke (pp. 1-21); \"Guillaume de Moer-\r\nbeke et la cour pontificale\" by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (pp. 23-52); \"Note con-\r\ncernant certaines missions qui auraient ete confiees a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by\r\nWilly Vanhamel (pp. 53-56); \"Guillaume de Moerbeke et saint Thomas\" by Carlos\r\nSteel (pp. 57-82); \"Pietro d'Abano e l'utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di\r\nMoerbeke del commento di Simplicio al \/\/ De caelo di Aristotele\" by Graziella Federici\r\nVescovini (pp. 83-106); \"Quelques utilisateurs des textes rares de Moerbeke\r\n(Philopon, Tria opuscula) et particulierement Jacques de Viterbe\" by Louis Jacques\r\nBataillon (pp. 107-12); \"Quelques remarques codicologiques et paleographiques\r\nau sujet du ms. Vaticano Ottob. lat. 1850\" by Robert Wielockx (pp. 113-33);\r\n\"La liste des ceuvres d'Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr. 100: Un\r\nautographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 135-83);\r\n\"Note concernant la collation d'un deuxieme manuscrit grec de la Physique\r\npar Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Jozef Brams and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp.\r\n185-92); \"La 'Recensio Matritensis' de la Physique\" by Jozef Brams (pp. 193-220);\r\n\"La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (Analisi del\r\nlibro I)\" by Pietro Rossi (pp. 221-45); \"L'attribution de la Translatio nova du De\r\ngenerations et corruptione a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Joanna Judycka (pp. 247-51);\r\n\"Iudicialia ad Syrum: Une traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke du Quadripartitum\r\nde Cl. Ptol\u00a3mee\" by Luc Anthonis (pp. 253-55); \"Methode de traduction et\r\nproblemes de chronologie\" by Fernand Bossier (pp. 257-94); \"L'usage des mots\r\nhybrides greco-latins par Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp.\r\n295-99); and \"Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Willy Vanhamel\r\n(pp. 301-83).","btype":4,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kM52uB2YgiCytgt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":337,"full_name":"Brams, Jozef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":338,"full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":326,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1989]}

Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos, 1989
By: Fortenbaugh, William. W. (Ed.), Steinmetz, Peter (Ed.)
Title Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1989
Publication Place London
Publisher Routledge
Series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities
Volume 4
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Steinmetz, Peter
Translator(s)
Cicero is best known for his political speeches. His Catilinarian orations are regularly studied in third or fourth year Latin; his self-proclaimed role as savior of the Republic is much discussed in courses on Roman history. But, however fascinating such material may be, there is another side to Cicero which is equally important and only now receiving the attention it deserves. This is Cicero's interest in Hellenistic thought. As a young man he studied philosophy in Greece; throughout his life he maintained a keen interest in intellectual history; and during periods of political inactivity - especially in his last years as the Republic collapsed - he wrote treatises that today are invaluable sources for our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, including the School of Aristotle. The essays collected in this volume deal with these treatises and in particular with Cicero's knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy. They ask such questions as: Did Cicero-know Aristotle first hand, or was the corpus Aristotelicum unavailable to him and his contemporaries? Did Cicero have access to the writings of Theophrastus, and in general did he know the post-Aristotelians whose works are all but lost to us? When Cicero reports the views of early philosophers, is he a reliable witness, and is he conveying important information? These and other fundamental questions are asked with special reference to traditional areas of Greek thought: logic and rhetoric, politics and ethics, physics, psychology, and theology. The answers are various, but the overall impression is clear: Cicero himself was a highly intelligent, well educated Roman, whose treatises contain significant material. Scholars working on Peripatetic thought and on the Hellenistic period as a whole cannot afford to ignore them. This fourth volume in the Rutgers University Studies in Classic Humanities series deals with Cicero, orator and writer of the late Roman Republic. Interest in Cicero arose out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking based at Rutgers dedicated to collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus. This collection will be of value to philologists, classicists, philosophers, as well as those interested in the history of science. [official abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"334","_score":null,"_source":{"id":334,"authors_free":[{"id":427,"entry_id":334,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William. W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":428,"entry_id":334,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":378,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Steinmetz","norm_person":{"id":378,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Steinmetz","full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11891913X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos","main_title":{"title":"Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos"},"abstract":"Cicero is best known for his political speeches. His Catilinarian orations are regularly studied in third or fourth year Latin; his self-proclaimed role as savior of the Republic is much discussed in courses on Roman history. But, however fascinating such material may be, there is another side to Cicero which is equally important and only now receiving the attention it deserves. This is Cicero's interest in Hellenistic thought. As a young man he studied philosophy in Greece; throughout his life he maintained a keen interest in intellectual history; and during periods of political inactivity - especially in his last years as the Republic collapsed - he wrote treatises that today are invaluable sources for our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, including the School of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe essays collected in this volume deal with these treatises and in particular with Cicero's knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy. They ask such questions as: Did Cicero-know Aristotle first hand, or was the corpus Aristotelicum unavailable to him and his contemporaries? Did Cicero have access to the writings of Theophrastus, and in general did he know the post-Aristotelians whose works are all but lost to us? When Cicero reports the views of early philosophers, is he a reliable witness, and is he conveying important information? These and other fundamental questions are asked with special reference to traditional areas of Greek thought: logic and rhetoric, politics and ethics, physics, psychology, and theology. The answers are various, but the overall impression is clear: Cicero himself was a highly intelligent, well educated Roman, whose treatises contain significant material. Scholars working on Peripatetic thought and on the Hellenistic period as a whole cannot afford to ignore them.\r\n\r\nThis fourth volume in the Rutgers University Studies in Classic Humanities series deals with Cicero, orator and writer of the late Roman Republic. Interest in Cicero arose out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking based at Rutgers dedicated to collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus. This collection will be of value to philologists, classicists, philosophers, as well as those interested in the history of science. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1989","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":378,"full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":334,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1989]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 6’, 1989
By: Konstan, David (Ed.), Simplicius
Title Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 6’
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1989
Publication Place London
Publisher Duckworth
Series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simplicius
Editor(s) Konstan, David
Translator(s) Konstan, David(Konstan, David) ,
Book Six of Aristotle's Physics, which concerns the continuum, shows Aristotle at his best. It contains his attack on atomism which forced subsequent Greek and Islamic atomists to reshape their views entirely. It also elaborates Zeno's paradoxes of motion and the famous paradoxes of stopping and starting. This is the first translation into any modern language of Simplicius' commentary on Book Six. Simplicius, the greatest ancient authority on Aristotle's Physics whose works have survived to the present, lived in the sixth century A.D. He produced detailed commentaries on several of Aristotle's works. Those on the Physics, which alone come to over 1300 pages in the original Greek, preserve not only a centuries-old tradition of ancient scholarship on Aristotle but also fragments of lost works by other thinkers, including both the Presocratic philosophers and such Aristotalians as Eudemus, Theophrastus and Alexander. The Physics contains some of Aristotle's best and most enduring work, and Simplicius' commentaries are essential to an understanding of it. This volume makes the commentary on Book Six accessible at last to all scholars, whether or not they know classical Greek. It will be indispensible for students of classical philosophy, and especially of Aristotle, as well as for those interested in philosophical thought of late antiquity. It will also be welcomed by students of the history of ideas and philosophers interested in problem mathematics and motion. [offical abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"103","_score":null,"_source":{"id":103,"authors_free":[{"id":120,"entry_id":103,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":430,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Konstan, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Konstan","norm_person":{"id":430,"first_name":"David","last_name":"Konstan","full_name":"Konstan, David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132072300","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2272,"entry_id":103,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":430,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Konstan, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Konstan","norm_person":{"id":430,"first_name":"David","last_name":"Konstan","full_name":"Konstan, David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132072300","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2325,"entry_id":103,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 6\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 6\u2019"},"abstract":"Book Six of Aristotle's Physics, which concerns the continuum, shows Aristotle at his best. It contains his attack on atomism which forced subsequent Greek and Islamic atomists to reshape their views entirely. It also elaborates Zeno's paradoxes of motion and the famous paradoxes of stopping and starting.\r\nThis is the first translation into any modern language of Simplicius' commentary on Book Six. Simplicius, the greatest ancient authority on Aristotle's Physics whose works have survived to the present, lived in the sixth century A.D. He produced detailed commentaries on several of Aristotle's works. Those on the Physics, which alone come to over 1300 pages in the original Greek, preserve not only a centuries-old tradition of ancient scholarship on Aristotle but also fragments of lost works by other thinkers, including both the Presocratic philosophers and such Aristotalians as Eudemus, Theophrastus and Alexander.\r\nThe Physics contains some of Aristotle's best and most enduring work, and Simplicius' commentaries are essential to an understanding of it. This volume makes the commentary on Book Six accessible at last to all scholars, whether or not they know classical Greek. It will be indispensible for students of classical philosophy, and especially of Aristotle, as well as for those interested in philosophical thought of late antiquity. It will also be welcomed by students of the history of ideas and philosophers interested in problem mathematics and motion. [offical abstract]\r\n","btype":1,"date":"1989","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2A29TJYaiV3J3QH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":430,"full_name":"Konstan, David","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":430,"full_name":"Konstan, David","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":103,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1989]}

Les sources gréco-arabes de la théorie médiévale de l'analogie de l'être, 1989
By: de Libera, Alain
Title Les sources gréco-arabes de la théorie médiévale de l'analogie de l'être
Type Article
Language French
Date 1989
Journal Les Études philosophiques
Volume 3
Issue 4
Pages 319-345
Categories no categories
Author(s) de Libera, Alain
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
C'est ici le lieu de revenir sur le concept de denominatio. Dans les versions latines d'Aristote, le mot denominativa désigne, on l'a dit, les « paronymes », c'est-à-dire ces « réalités qui, tout en différant d'une autre (réalité) par la désinence de leur nom, ont une appellation conforme au nom (de cette autre réalité) ». Chez Maître Eckhart, la notion de « prédication dénominative », empruntée à la Logica d'Avicenne (chap. 3, Venise, 1508, fol. 3 vb), rejoint la notion boécienne de praedicatio des accidentia secundum rem (De Trinitate, chap. 4), exprimant un aspect de la déficience ontologique constitutive de l’étant créé comme tel. Pour lui, dire que « les neuf catégories sont prédiquées dénominativement de la substance » (novem praedicamenta accidentium praedicantur denominative de substantia) signifie que tout étant créé est un dénominatif, c'est-à-dire un étant-ceci ou cela (ens hoc et hoc), et qu'aucun étant-ceci n'est en tant que ceci : tout « ceci » ajouté à la substance est l'expression de la défaillance (casus, πτῶσις) qui accidente le créé. C'est dans cette tradition complexe, à la fois liée à la théorie averroïste de l'accident et aux théories avicennienne (ontologique) et boécienne (théologique) de la prédication—et non à la théorie de l’analogie selon Simplicius—que se situe le célèbre passage d’In Exodum, où le Thuringien expose sa théorie des catégories, qu'on peut résumer ainsi : Les dix catégories ne sont pas les dix premiers étants (decem prima entia), mais les dix genres premiers des étants (decem prima entium genera). Il n'y a qu'un étant, la substance ; les autres réalités ne sont pas « étant » (ens), mais « de ou à l’étant » (entis), c’est-à-dire « étant seulement par analogie au seul étant au sens absolu, la substance, comme en témoigne la Métaphysique, livre VII ». Les neuf prédicaments de l’accident ne sont donc pas des étants « au cas régime » (entia in recto), mais des étants au « cas oblique » (in obliquo). C'est en ce sens « oblique » que l’urine est dite « saine », non par la santé « formellement inhérente », « mais seulement par analogie et renvoi extrinsèque à la santé elle-même, qui au sens propre et formel se trouve seulement dans l’animal » (non sanitate formaliter inhaerente, sed sola analogia et respectu ad ipsam sanitatem extra, quae proprie formaliter est in ipso animali). C’est également en ce sens que le vin est dit « être dans l’enseigne », signifiant qu’il se trouve dans la taverne et la bouteille. Telle est donc la théorie dont Nicolas prétend trouver les contours généraux, ou plus exactement l’instrumentation conceptuelle, chez Simplicius. Certes, il n'en laisse pas l’application métaphysique au commentateur lui-même—ce en quoi il a raison—mais il a tort lorsqu'il lui prête une formulation de l’analogia attributionis, qu'il ne pouvait lire que chez Dietrich de Freiberg et Eckhart. On peut spéculer à loisir sur une telle absence d'acribie. Mais n'est-ce pas Albert le Grand lui-même qui en inaugure le principe lorsque, dans sa dernière œuvre, la Summa theologiae, il prête à Proclus une distinction entre quatre types de « prédication commune » : une selon l’univocité stricte, trois selon l’analogie—un véritable montage qui, à partir de certaines expressions de Proclus sur le caractère salvifique du bien (« le bien est ce qui sauve tous les êtres et devient ainsi le terme de leur tendance »), lui permet de retrouver en fait l’interprétation averroïste de la triade porphyrienne des homonymes κατὰ διάνοιαν. Plutôt que d’incriminer les légèretés ou les insuffisances de la doxographie médiévale, nous préférons voir là le témoignage de la puissance d'assimilation et de la productivité de la grille de lecture originairement imposée par Porphyre aux textes d’Aristote. L’histoire des sources gréco-arabes de la théorie médiévale de l’analogie est celle d’un invariant structurel grec et de ses remplissements arabes, qui, pour finir, retrouve d’autres Grecs traduits par Guillaume de Moerbeke. C’est l’histoire d’une dérive péripatéticienne de l’aristotélisme qui commence chez Porphyre et s’achève dans le néoplatonisme. La production médiévale de l’analogie n’est pas seulement une « replatonisation » d’Aristote, c’est aussi la marque de l’affinité structurelle qui lie entre elles toutes les formes de néoplatonisme. Plus décisif encore, elle procède moins d’un rapprochement des πρός ἕν λεγόμενα avec les synonymes que d’une substitution des πρός ἕν λεγόμενα aux paronymes. Reconduite à ses sources gréco-arabes, l’analogie apparaît ainsi avant tout comme la théorie d’une transsumption catégorielle archi-fondatrice : celle qui articule toute pensée du rapport entre la substance et l’accident. [conclusion p. 343-345]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1296","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1296,"authors_free":[{"id":1889,"entry_id":1296,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":85,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"de Libera, Alain ","free_first_name":"Alain","free_last_name":"de Libera ","norm_person":{"id":85,"first_name":"Alain","last_name":"De Libera","full_name":"De Libera, Alain","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130219002","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les sources gr\u00e9co-arabes de la th\u00e9orie m\u00e9di\u00e9vale de l'analogie de l'\u00eatre","main_title":{"title":"Les sources gr\u00e9co-arabes de la th\u00e9orie m\u00e9di\u00e9vale de l'analogie de l'\u00eatre"},"abstract":"C'est ici le lieu de revenir sur le concept de denominatio. Dans les versions latines d'Aristote, le mot denominativa d\u00e9signe, on l'a dit, les \u00ab paronymes \u00bb, c'est-\u00e0-dire ces \u00ab r\u00e9alit\u00e9s qui, tout en diff\u00e9rant d'une autre (r\u00e9alit\u00e9) par la d\u00e9sinence de leur nom, ont une appellation conforme au nom (de cette autre r\u00e9alit\u00e9) \u00bb.\r\n\r\nChez Ma\u00eetre Eckhart, la notion de \u00ab pr\u00e9dication d\u00e9nominative \u00bb, emprunt\u00e9e \u00e0 la Logica d'Avicenne (chap. 3, Venise, 1508, fol. 3 vb), rejoint la notion bo\u00e9cienne de praedicatio des accidentia secundum rem (De Trinitate, chap. 4), exprimant un aspect de la d\u00e9ficience ontologique constitutive de l\u2019\u00e9tant cr\u00e9\u00e9 comme tel. Pour lui, dire que \u00ab les neuf cat\u00e9gories sont pr\u00e9diqu\u00e9es d\u00e9nominativement de la substance \u00bb (novem praedicamenta accidentium praedicantur denominative de substantia) signifie que tout \u00e9tant cr\u00e9\u00e9 est un d\u00e9nominatif, c'est-\u00e0-dire un \u00e9tant-ceci ou cela (ens hoc et hoc), et qu'aucun \u00e9tant-ceci n'est en tant que ceci : tout \u00ab ceci \u00bb ajout\u00e9 \u00e0 la substance est l'expression de la d\u00e9faillance (casus, \u03c0\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) qui accidente le cr\u00e9\u00e9.\r\n\r\nC'est dans cette tradition complexe, \u00e0 la fois li\u00e9e \u00e0 la th\u00e9orie averro\u00efste de l'accident et aux th\u00e9ories avicennienne (ontologique) et bo\u00e9cienne (th\u00e9ologique) de la pr\u00e9dication\u2014et non \u00e0 la th\u00e9orie de l\u2019analogie selon Simplicius\u2014que se situe le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre passage d\u2019In Exodum, o\u00f9 le Thuringien expose sa th\u00e9orie des cat\u00e9gories, qu'on peut r\u00e9sumer ainsi :\r\n\r\n Les dix cat\u00e9gories ne sont pas les dix premiers \u00e9tants (decem prima entia), mais les dix genres premiers des \u00e9tants (decem prima entium genera).\r\n Il n'y a qu'un \u00e9tant, la substance ; les autres r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ne sont pas \u00ab \u00e9tant \u00bb (ens), mais \u00ab de ou \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tant \u00bb (entis), c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire \u00ab \u00e9tant seulement par analogie au seul \u00e9tant au sens absolu, la substance, comme en t\u00e9moigne la M\u00e9taphysique, livre VII \u00bb.\r\n Les neuf pr\u00e9dicaments de l\u2019accident ne sont donc pas des \u00e9tants \u00ab au cas r\u00e9gime \u00bb (entia in recto), mais des \u00e9tants au \u00ab cas oblique \u00bb (in obliquo).\r\n C'est en ce sens \u00ab oblique \u00bb que l\u2019urine est dite \u00ab saine \u00bb, non par la sant\u00e9 \u00ab formellement inh\u00e9rente \u00bb, \u00ab mais seulement par analogie et renvoi extrins\u00e8que \u00e0 la sant\u00e9 elle-m\u00eame, qui au sens propre et formel se trouve seulement dans l\u2019animal \u00bb (non sanitate formaliter inhaerente, sed sola analogia et respectu ad ipsam sanitatem extra, quae proprie formaliter est in ipso animali).\r\n C\u2019est \u00e9galement en ce sens que le vin est dit \u00ab \u00eatre dans l\u2019enseigne \u00bb, signifiant qu\u2019il se trouve dans la taverne et la bouteille.\r\n\r\nTelle est donc la th\u00e9orie dont Nicolas pr\u00e9tend trouver les contours g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, ou plus exactement l\u2019instrumentation conceptuelle, chez Simplicius. Certes, il n'en laisse pas l\u2019application m\u00e9taphysique au commentateur lui-m\u00eame\u2014ce en quoi il a raison\u2014mais il a tort lorsqu'il lui pr\u00eate une formulation de l\u2019analogia attributionis, qu'il ne pouvait lire que chez Dietrich de Freiberg et Eckhart.\r\n\r\nOn peut sp\u00e9culer \u00e0 loisir sur une telle absence d'acribie. Mais n'est-ce pas Albert le Grand lui-m\u00eame qui en inaugure le principe lorsque, dans sa derni\u00e8re \u0153uvre, la Summa theologiae, il pr\u00eate \u00e0 Proclus une distinction entre quatre types de \u00ab pr\u00e9dication commune \u00bb : une selon l\u2019univocit\u00e9 stricte, trois selon l\u2019analogie\u2014un v\u00e9ritable montage qui, \u00e0 partir de certaines expressions de Proclus sur le caract\u00e8re salvifique du bien (\u00ab le bien est ce qui sauve tous les \u00eatres et devient ainsi le terme de leur tendance \u00bb), lui permet de retrouver en fait l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation averro\u00efste de la triade porphyrienne des homonymes \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.\r\n\r\nPlut\u00f4t que d\u2019incriminer les l\u00e9g\u00e8ret\u00e9s ou les insuffisances de la doxographie m\u00e9di\u00e9vale, nous pr\u00e9f\u00e9rons voir l\u00e0 le t\u00e9moignage de la puissance d'assimilation et de la productivit\u00e9 de la grille de lecture originairement impos\u00e9e par Porphyre aux textes d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nL\u2019histoire des sources gr\u00e9co-arabes de la th\u00e9orie m\u00e9di\u00e9vale de l\u2019analogie est celle d\u2019un invariant structurel grec et de ses remplissements arabes, qui, pour finir, retrouve d\u2019autres Grecs traduits par Guillaume de Moerbeke. C\u2019est l\u2019histoire d\u2019une d\u00e9rive p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme qui commence chez Porphyre et s\u2019ach\u00e8ve dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme. La production m\u00e9di\u00e9vale de l\u2019analogie n\u2019est pas seulement une \u00ab replatonisation \u00bb d\u2019Aristote, c\u2019est aussi la marque de l\u2019affinit\u00e9 structurelle qui lie entre elles toutes les formes de n\u00e9oplatonisme. Plus d\u00e9cisif encore, elle proc\u00e8de moins d\u2019un rapprochement des \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 avec les synonymes que d\u2019une substitution des \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 aux paronymes.\r\n\r\nReconduite \u00e0 ses sources gr\u00e9co-arabes, l\u2019analogie appara\u00eet ainsi avant tout comme la th\u00e9orie d\u2019une transsumption cat\u00e9gorielle archi-fondatrice : celle qui articule toute pens\u00e9e du rapport entre la substance et l\u2019accident. [conclusion p. 343-345]","btype":3,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FAqS35nEd0udN0w","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":85,"full_name":"De Libera, Alain","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1296,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques","volume":"3","issue":"4","pages":"319-345"}},"sort":[1989]}

La Physique d’Empédocle selon Simplicius, 1989
By: Stevens, Annick
Title La Physique d’Empédocle selon Simplicius
Type Article
Language French
Date 1989
Journal Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire
Volume 67
Issue 1
Pages 65-74
Categories no categories
Author(s) Stevens, Annick
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
J'en arrive à faire la synthèse de l'apport positif et original qui résulte de l'étude de Simplicius. Tout d'abord, quand il ne se démarque pas de la tradition doxographique, c'est qu'elle transmet l'interprétation la plus plausible : ainsi, la matérialité des racines à partir desquelles sont créés tous les corps et l'explication de leurs mélanges par l'introduction de principes de création, auxquels il donne un nom assez prudent pour ne pas offrir prise à la réfutation. Remarquons en outre sa clairvoyance quant au choix de la désignation des principes créateurs à partir de notions connues dans le réel observable, pour décrire le réel invisible. D'autre part, Simplicius se démarque des autres doxographes anciens en refusant la conception d'un cycle cosmique à quatre phases. Là encore, si l'on veut respecter le texte d'Empédocle, on ne peut que lui donner raison : seuls deux stades cosmiques sont décrits : le tout unifié de la Sphère (où la Haine, néanmoins, n'est pas détruite mais retirée aux confins) et la multiplicité née de l'opposition des deux principes créateurs. Il fallait en effet souligner que ni l'un ni l'autre ne peut créer seul ; en ce sens, ils sont, autant qu'opposés, complémentaires. Reste à savoir si ces deux stades existent alternativement ou simultanément et, à ce propos, il est clair que Simplicius a voulu imposer la vision néo-platonicienne au détriment de la stricte observation du texte. Ses arguments en faveur de la « double disposition » sont faibles et parfois même péremptoires, dans la mesure où il annihile les passages qui le gênent en les qualifiant de « fiction poétique ». En revanche, sa « solution de rechange », qui fait état d'une coexistence entre le mouvement et une certaine forme d'immobilité (donc, d'une certaine manière, d'une double manifestation du réel) — cette immobilité résultant de l'incessant roulement du devenir —, cette conception, loin d'entrer en contradiction avec ce que nous savons des théories présocratiques en général et empédocléenne en particulier, est extrêmement intéressante et peut ouvrir la voie à un nouvel examen approfondi du poème d'Empédocle. [conclusion p. 74]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"480","_score":null,"_source":{"id":480,"authors_free":[{"id":650,"entry_id":480,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":323,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stevens, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Stevens","norm_person":{"id":323,"first_name":" Annick","last_name":"Stevens","full_name":"Stevens, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1195240120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La Physique d\u2019Emp\u00e9docle selon Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La Physique d\u2019Emp\u00e9docle selon Simplicius"},"abstract":"J'en arrive \u00e0 faire la synth\u00e8se de l'apport positif et original qui r\u00e9sulte de l'\u00e9tude de Simplicius. Tout d'abord, quand il ne se d\u00e9marque pas de la tradition doxographique, c'est qu'elle transmet l'interpr\u00e9tation la plus plausible : ainsi, la mat\u00e9rialit\u00e9 des racines \u00e0 partir desquelles sont cr\u00e9\u00e9s tous les corps et l'explication de leurs m\u00e9langes par l'introduction de principes de cr\u00e9ation, auxquels il donne un nom assez prudent pour ne pas offrir prise \u00e0 la r\u00e9futation. Remarquons en outre sa clairvoyance quant au choix de la d\u00e9signation des principes cr\u00e9ateurs \u00e0 partir de notions connues dans le r\u00e9el observable, pour d\u00e9crire le r\u00e9el invisible.\r\n\r\nD'autre part, Simplicius se d\u00e9marque des autres doxographes anciens en refusant la conception d'un cycle cosmique \u00e0 quatre phases. L\u00e0 encore, si l'on veut respecter le texte d'Emp\u00e9docle, on ne peut que lui donner raison : seuls deux stades cosmiques sont d\u00e9crits : le tout unifi\u00e9 de la Sph\u00e8re (o\u00f9 la Haine, n\u00e9anmoins, n'est pas d\u00e9truite mais retir\u00e9e aux confins) et la multiplicit\u00e9 n\u00e9e de l'opposition des deux principes cr\u00e9ateurs. Il fallait en effet souligner que ni l'un ni l'autre ne peut cr\u00e9er seul ; en ce sens, ils sont, autant qu'oppos\u00e9s, compl\u00e9mentaires.\r\n\r\nReste \u00e0 savoir si ces deux stades existent alternativement ou simultan\u00e9ment et, \u00e0 ce propos, il est clair que Simplicius a voulu imposer la vision n\u00e9o-platonicienne au d\u00e9triment de la stricte observation du texte. Ses arguments en faveur de la \u00ab double disposition \u00bb sont faibles et parfois m\u00eame p\u00e9remptoires, dans la mesure o\u00f9 il annihile les passages qui le g\u00eanent en les qualifiant de \u00ab fiction po\u00e9tique \u00bb.\r\n\r\nEn revanche, sa \u00ab solution de rechange \u00bb, qui fait \u00e9tat d'une coexistence entre le mouvement et une certaine forme d'immobilit\u00e9 (donc, d'une certaine mani\u00e8re, d'une double manifestation du r\u00e9el) \u2014 cette immobilit\u00e9 r\u00e9sultant de l'incessant roulement du devenir \u2014, cette conception, loin d'entrer en contradiction avec ce que nous savons des th\u00e9ories pr\u00e9socratiques en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral et emp\u00e9docl\u00e9enne en particulier, est extr\u00eamement int\u00e9ressante et peut ouvrir la voie \u00e0 un nouvel examen approfondi du po\u00e8me d'Emp\u00e9docle. [conclusion p. 74]","btype":3,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tQhjx4b0GzJ1L5S","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":323,"full_name":"Stevens, Annick","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":480,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire","volume":"67","issue":"1","pages":"65-74"}},"sort":[1989]}

Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras, 1989
By: Sylvestre, Maria Luisa, Boudouris, Konstantin, J. (Ed.)
Title Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1989
Published in Ionian Philosophy
Pages 369-374
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sylvestre, Maria Luisa
Editor(s) Boudouris, Konstantin, J.
Translator(s)
This text discusses Simplicius' testimony concerning Anaxagoras and the authenticity of the fragments attributed to Anaxagoras, which are mostly preserved by Simplicius. While scholars have debated the authenticity of Simplicius' fragments, the author believes in Simplicius' faithfulness to the true doctrine of Anaxagoras. However, the author notes that Simplicius wrote about a thousand years after Anaxagoras, was a pupil of Proclus, and a neo-Platonist himself. The text highlights the importance of comparing Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle with the corresponding text of Aristotle to understand his personal interpretation of Anaxagoras. Finally, the text briefly discusses Anaxagoras' concept of nous and its interpretation by Plato, Aristotle, and Simplicius. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1385","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1385,"authors_free":[{"id":2137,"entry_id":1385,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":327,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sylvestre, Maria Luisa","free_first_name":"Maria Luisa","free_last_name":"Sylvestre","norm_person":{"id":327,"first_name":"Maria Luisa","last_name":"Sylvestre","full_name":"Sylvestre, Maria Luisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2138,"entry_id":1385,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":328,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin, J.","free_first_name":"Konstantin, J.","free_last_name":"Boudouris","norm_person":{"id":328,"first_name":"Konstantin J.","last_name":"Boudouris,","full_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1041800053","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras"},"abstract":"This text discusses Simplicius' testimony concerning Anaxagoras and the authenticity of the fragments attributed to Anaxagoras, which are mostly preserved by Simplicius. While scholars have debated the authenticity of Simplicius' fragments, the author believes in Simplicius' faithfulness to the true doctrine of Anaxagoras. However, the author notes that Simplicius wrote about a thousand years after Anaxagoras, was a pupil of Proclus, and a neo-Platonist himself. The text highlights the importance of comparing Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle with the corresponding text of Aristotle to understand his personal interpretation of Anaxagoras. Finally, the text briefly discusses Anaxagoras' concept of nous and its interpretation by Plato, Aristotle, and Simplicius. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gJ3DXudfcNprrxr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":327,"full_name":"Sylvestre, Maria Luisa","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":328,"full_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1385,"section_of":238,"pages":"369-374","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":238,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ionian Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Boudouris1989","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"\u2018The articles in this volume are, in the main, the texts of papers read either in full or in part at the First International Conference on Greek Philosophy (Samos 1988)\u2019 (from the editor\u2019s Preface). Appropriately to such a first conference, it was devoted to the beginnings of philosophy in Greece and, more specifically, in Ionia itself. The volume includes forty- seven papers dealing with all the major figures of Ionian philosophy, from the Milesians to Anaxagoras. Pythagoras, the most illustrious native of Samos, and the Pythagoreans (technically considered an \u2018Italian\u2019 sect, but included by courtesy in the theme of the conference), attract the attention of seven scholars. The other notable Samian, Melissus, is the subject of only one contribution, by D. Furley, possibly because Melissus is usually\r\nBOOK REVIEWS 141classified by the doxographers as an Eleatic. Xenophanes of Colophon is dealt with in five of the articles. Perhaps not surprisingly, almost half of the papers deal with Heraclitus of Ephesus, just across the water from Samos. Among those excluded from this book are the Italians Parmenides, Zeno and Empedocles, and the atomists of Abdera\" [Review Scolnicov]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9oSZ8qRrH4iopVv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":238,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"International Association for Greek Philosophy and Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture","series":"Studies in Greek Philosophy","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1989]}

Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas, 1989
By: Steel, Carlos, Brams, Jozef (Ed.), Vanhamel, Willy (Ed.)
Title Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1989
Published in Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)
Pages 57-82
Categories no categories
Author(s) Steel, Carlos
Editor(s) Brams, Jozef , Vanhamel, Willy
Translator(s)
On peut difficilement expliquer l’utilisation privilégiée des traductions de Moerbeke dont témoigne l’œuvre de saint Thomas, si on n’admet pas que les deux hommes aient été en relation directe. Certes, Guillaume a commencé son projet de traduction sans l’initiative ou l’encouragement de Thomas. Mais, quand ce dernier eut pris connaissance du travail de son confrère (probablement lors d’une rencontre à Viterbe), il a commencé à utiliser ses traductions. Il est même probable qu’il a commandé quelques fois lui-même une traduction. Les données manquent pour pouvoir parler d’une véritable collaboration entre les deux hommes. D’ailleurs, je n’ai pas l’impression que leurs intérêts intellectuels étaient convergents. Si on peut prendre le prologue de la Perspectiva de Witelo comme un témoignage indirect sur la pensée de Guillaume, il semble qu’il avait une préférence pour une philosophie platonisante, avec un intérêt particulier pour la philosophie de la nature et l’astronomie (-logie?). Il avait probablement plus de connaturalité intellectuelle avec son jeune ami et compatriote Henri Bate (qui lui a dédié son traité sur la composition de l’astrolabe) qu’avec le théologien-philosophe Thomas d’Aquin. Quoi qu’il en soit, il est hors de doute que Thomas a pu profiter largement du travail de son confrère. Selon la tradition, Thomas aurait pris des initiatives pour obtenir de nouvelles traductions d’Aristote. Les faits que nous avons examinés ne sont pas en contradiction avec ce témoignage. Mais, comme il arrive fréquemment dans une tradition hagiographique, on accentue tellement les exploits du héros principal qu’on a tendance à réduire l’activité des contemporains à celle de « collaborateurs » et à minimiser leur apport original. D’où la tradition que Guillaume de Moerbeke aurait entrepris tout son travail ad instantiam fratris Thomae. L’étude de l’histoire des traductions et les remarques critiques du F. Gauthier nous ont obligés à limiter nettement la portée de ce témoignage. Cette étude a restitué ainsi à Moerbeke son autonomie et son originalité intellectuelle. Mais elle a confirmé également qu’il y a eu communication scientifique entre les deux dominicains (ce qui est le noyau solide de la tradition). Thomas a très vite compris l’importance du travail de son confrère. Il en a profité le premier, et c’est probablement grâce à son autorité que des traductions de Moerbeke ont commencé à circuler à Paris, et à partir de là dans la culture latine. [conclusion p. 81-82]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1388","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1388,"authors_free":[{"id":2147,"entry_id":1388,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2148,"entry_id":1388,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":337,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brams, Jozef","free_first_name":"Jozef","free_last_name":"Brams","norm_person":{"id":337,"first_name":"Jozef","last_name":"Brams","full_name":"Brams, Jozef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145645712","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2149,"entry_id":1388,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":338,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","free_first_name":"Willy","free_last_name":"Vanhamel","norm_person":{"id":338,"first_name":"Willy","last_name":"Vanhamel","full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141109661","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas","main_title":{"title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas"},"abstract":"On peut difficilement expliquer l\u2019utilisation privil\u00e9gi\u00e9e des traductions de Moerbeke dont t\u00e9moigne l\u2019\u0153uvre de saint Thomas, si on n\u2019admet pas que les deux hommes aient \u00e9t\u00e9 en relation directe. Certes, Guillaume a commenc\u00e9 son projet de traduction sans l\u2019initiative ou l\u2019encouragement de Thomas. Mais, quand ce dernier eut pris connaissance du travail de son confr\u00e8re (probablement lors d\u2019une rencontre \u00e0 Viterbe), il a commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 utiliser ses traductions. Il est m\u00eame probable qu\u2019il a command\u00e9 quelques fois lui-m\u00eame une traduction. Les donn\u00e9es manquent pour pouvoir parler d\u2019une v\u00e9ritable collaboration entre les deux hommes.\r\n\r\nD\u2019ailleurs, je n\u2019ai pas l\u2019impression que leurs int\u00e9r\u00eats intellectuels \u00e9taient convergents. Si on peut prendre le prologue de la Perspectiva de Witelo comme un t\u00e9moignage indirect sur la pens\u00e9e de Guillaume, il semble qu\u2019il avait une pr\u00e9f\u00e9rence pour une philosophie platonisante, avec un int\u00e9r\u00eat particulier pour la philosophie de la nature et l\u2019astronomie (-logie?). Il avait probablement plus de connaturalit\u00e9 intellectuelle avec son jeune ami et compatriote Henri Bate (qui lui a d\u00e9di\u00e9 son trait\u00e9 sur la composition de l\u2019astrolabe) qu\u2019avec le th\u00e9ologien-philosophe Thomas d\u2019Aquin.\r\n\r\nQuoi qu\u2019il en soit, il est hors de doute que Thomas a pu profiter largement du travail de son confr\u00e8re. Selon la tradition, Thomas aurait pris des initiatives pour obtenir de nouvelles traductions d\u2019Aristote. Les faits que nous avons examin\u00e9s ne sont pas en contradiction avec ce t\u00e9moignage. Mais, comme il arrive fr\u00e9quemment dans une tradition hagiographique, on accentue tellement les exploits du h\u00e9ros principal qu\u2019on a tendance \u00e0 r\u00e9duire l\u2019activit\u00e9 des contemporains \u00e0 celle de \u00ab collaborateurs \u00bb et \u00e0 minimiser leur apport original.\r\n\r\nD\u2019o\u00f9 la tradition que Guillaume de Moerbeke aurait entrepris tout son travail ad instantiam fratris Thomae. L\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019histoire des traductions et les remarques critiques du F. Gauthier nous ont oblig\u00e9s \u00e0 limiter nettement la port\u00e9e de ce t\u00e9moignage. Cette \u00e9tude a restitu\u00e9 ainsi \u00e0 Moerbeke son autonomie et son originalit\u00e9 intellectuelle. Mais elle a confirm\u00e9 \u00e9galement qu\u2019il y a eu communication scientifique entre les deux dominicains (ce qui est le noyau solide de la tradition).\r\n\r\nThomas a tr\u00e8s vite compris l\u2019importance du travail de son confr\u00e8re. Il en a profit\u00e9 le premier, et c\u2019est probablement gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 son autorit\u00e9 que des traductions de Moerbeke ont commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 circuler \u00e0 Paris, et \u00e0 partir de l\u00e0 dans la culture latine. [conclusion p. 81-82]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3D0JB4FJderQiIl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":337,"full_name":"Brams, Jozef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":338,"full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1388,"section_of":326,"pages":"57-82","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":326,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brams1989","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"T h e following articles are included in this volume: \"Moerbeke, traducteur et inter-\r\nprete: Un texte et une pensee\" by Gerard Verbeke (pp. 1-21); \"Guillaume de Moer-\r\nbeke et la cour pontificale\" by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (pp. 23-52); \"Note con-\r\ncernant certaines missions qui auraient ete confiees a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by\r\nWilly Vanhamel (pp. 53-56); \"Guillaume de Moerbeke et saint Thomas\" by Carlos\r\nSteel (pp. 57-82); \"Pietro d'Abano e l'utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di\r\nMoerbeke del commento di Simplicio al \/\/ De caelo di Aristotele\" by Graziella Federici\r\nVescovini (pp. 83-106); \"Quelques utilisateurs des textes rares de Moerbeke\r\n(Philopon, Tria opuscula) et particulierement Jacques de Viterbe\" by Louis Jacques\r\nBataillon (pp. 107-12); \"Quelques remarques codicologiques et paleographiques\r\nau sujet du ms. Vaticano Ottob. lat. 1850\" by Robert Wielockx (pp. 113-33);\r\n\"La liste des ceuvres d'Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr. 100: Un\r\nautographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 135-83);\r\n\"Note concernant la collation d'un deuxieme manuscrit grec de la Physique\r\npar Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Jozef Brams and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp.\r\n185-92); \"La 'Recensio Matritensis' de la Physique\" by Jozef Brams (pp. 193-220);\r\n\"La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (Analisi del\r\nlibro I)\" by Pietro Rossi (pp. 221-45); \"L'attribution de la Translatio nova du De\r\ngenerations et corruptione a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Joanna Judycka (pp. 247-51);\r\n\"Iudicialia ad Syrum: Une traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke du Quadripartitum\r\nde Cl. Ptol\u00a3mee\" by Luc Anthonis (pp. 253-55); \"Methode de traduction et\r\nproblemes de chronologie\" by Fernand Bossier (pp. 257-94); \"L'usage des mots\r\nhybrides greco-latins par Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp.\r\n295-99); and \"Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Willy Vanhamel\r\n(pp. 301-83).","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kM52uB2YgiCytgt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":326,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1989]}

Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity, 1989
By: Dominic J., O'Meara
Title Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1989
Publication Place Oxford
Publisher Clarendon Press
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dominic J., O'Meara
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The Pythagorean idea that number is the key to understanding reality inspired Neoplatonist philosophers in Late Antiquity to develop theories in physics and metaphysics based on mathematical models. This book examines this theme, describing first the Pythagorean interests of Platonists in the second and third centuries and then Iamblichus's programme to Pythagoreanize Platonism in the fourth century in his work On Pythagoreanism (whose unity of conception is shown and parts of which are reconstructed for the first time). The impact of Iamblichus's programme is examined as regards Hierocles of Alexandria and Syrianus and Proclus in Athens: their conceptions of the figure of Pythagoras and of mathematics and its relation to physics and metaphysics are examined and compared with those of Iamblichus. This provides insight into Iamblichus's contribution to the evolution of Neoplatonism, to the revival of interest in mathematics, and to the development of a philosophy of mathematics and a mathematizing physics and metaphysics. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1441","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1441,"authors_free":[{"id":2302,"entry_id":1441,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dominic J., O'Meara","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"The Pythagorean idea that number is the key to understanding reality inspired Neoplatonist philosophers in Late Antiquity to develop theories in physics and metaphysics based on mathematical models. This book examines this theme, describing first the Pythagorean interests of Platonists in the second and third centuries and then Iamblichus's programme to Pythagoreanize Platonism in the fourth century in his work On Pythagoreanism (whose unity of conception is shown and parts of which are reconstructed for the first time). The impact of Iamblichus's programme is examined as regards Hierocles of Alexandria and Syrianus and Proclus in Athens: their conceptions of the figure of Pythagoras and of mathematics and its relation to physics and metaphysics are examined and compared with those of Iamblichus. This provides insight into Iamblichus's contribution to the evolution of Neoplatonism, to the revival of interest in mathematics, and to the development of a philosophy of mathematics and a mathematizing physics and metaphysics. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1989","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fuRcbbwhcveVtDt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1441,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1989]}

Nous, the Concept of Ultimate Reality and Meaning in Anaxagoras, 1989
By: Silvestre, Maria Luisa
Title Nous, the Concept of Ultimate Reality and Meaning in Anaxagoras
Type Article
Language English
Date 1989
Journal Ultimate Reality and Meaning
Volume 12
Issue 4
Pages 248-255
Categories no categories
Author(s) Silvestre, Maria Luisa
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
That the world of Anaxagoras is without any soul entails that Nous is for him the ultimate reality. It is not the end of our life, but the origin of the world and of ourselves. It is that which brings life and at the same time that which gives human beings the possibility of knowing anything whatsoever. This is all that we can deduce from Plato and Aristotle's presentation of Anaxagoras' doctrine on Nous. Simplicius cites a passage in which we can see that Nous is infinite, has power over everything, and knows the past, the present, and even future time: While other things have a share of everything, Nous is infinite, self-governing, and has been mixed with nothing ... For it is the lightest of all things and the purest, and maintains complete understanding over everything and wields the greatest power. And Nous controls all, large and small, that has life ... and whatever sort of things were to be—what were and are no longer, what are, and what will be—Nous put all in order. (B12; Sider, 1981, p. 94). We are not sure if Anaxagoras' Nous really was all that Simplicius attributes to it, but there can be no doubt that Simplicius, like Plato and every other interpreter of Anaxagoras' Nous, agrees that Nous is the ultimate reality in Anaxagoras' philosophy. In our view, Anaxagoras' Nous can be described as a force originating in the interior of the All, which suddenly frees itself and introduces a movement that upsets, separates, aggregates, and distinguishes. Yet at the same time, it is a rational force of understanding, since its characteristic function—understanding—for Anaxagoras means nothing else but putting persons and things in their proper places in relation to each other. [conclusion p. 254-255]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1524","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1524,"authors_free":[{"id":2649,"entry_id":1524,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":404,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Silvestre, Maria Luisa","free_first_name":"Maria Luisa","free_last_name":"Silvestre","norm_person":{"id":404,"first_name":"Maria Luisa","last_name":"Silvestre","full_name":"Silvestre, Maria Luisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158446594","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Nous, the Concept of Ultimate Reality and Meaning in Anaxagoras","main_title":{"title":"Nous, the Concept of Ultimate Reality and Meaning in Anaxagoras"},"abstract":"That the world of Anaxagoras is without any soul entails that Nous is for him the ultimate reality. It is not the end of our life, but the origin of the world and of ourselves. It is that which brings life and at the same time that which gives human beings the possibility of knowing anything whatsoever. This is all that we can deduce from Plato and Aristotle's presentation of Anaxagoras' doctrine on Nous. Simplicius cites a passage in which we can see that Nous is infinite, has power over everything, and knows the past, the present, and even future time:\r\n\r\n While other things have a share of everything, Nous is infinite, self-governing, and has been mixed with nothing ... For it is the lightest of all things and the purest, and maintains complete understanding over everything and wields the greatest power. And Nous controls all, large and small, that has life ... and whatever sort of things were to be\u2014what were and are no longer, what are, and what will be\u2014Nous put all in order. (B12; Sider, 1981, p. 94).\r\n\r\nWe are not sure if Anaxagoras' Nous really was all that Simplicius attributes to it, but there can be no doubt that Simplicius, like Plato and every other interpreter of Anaxagoras' Nous, agrees that Nous is the ultimate reality in Anaxagoras' philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn our view, Anaxagoras' Nous can be described as a force originating in the interior of the All, which suddenly frees itself and introduces a movement that upsets, separates, aggregates, and distinguishes. Yet at the same time, it is a rational force of understanding, since its characteristic function\u2014understanding\u2014for Anaxagoras means nothing else but putting persons and things in their proper places in relation to each other. [conclusion p. 254-255]","btype":3,"date":" 1989","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WLkg0ul3k8yw6Tq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":404,"full_name":"Silvestre, Maria Luisa","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1524,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ultimate Reality and Meaning","volume":"12","issue":"4","pages":"248-255"}},"sort":[1989]}

Simplicius and others on Aristotle’s discussions of reason, 1988
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Duffy, John (Ed.), Peradotto, John J. (Ed.)
Title Simplicius and others on Aristotle’s discussions of reason
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1988
Published in Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75
Pages 103-119
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Duffy, John , Peradotto, John J.
Translator(s)
What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle’s successors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in particular the discussion in the De anima. bout their handling of relevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for unlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in the philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a commentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by other, probably pre-Neoplatonic, hands survive,8 exposition of the Nicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group of Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"784","_score":null,"_source":{"id":784,"authors_free":[{"id":1154,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2428,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":109,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Duffy, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Duffy","norm_person":{"id":109,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Duffy","full_name":"Duffy, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032769092","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2429,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":110,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Peradotto, John J.","free_first_name":"John J.","free_last_name":"Peradotto","norm_person":{"id":110,"first_name":"John J.","last_name":"Peradotto","full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172304636","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason"},"abstract":"What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle\u2019s \r\nsuccessors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in \r\nparticular the discussion in the De anima. bout their handling of \r\nrelevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for \r\nunlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in \r\nthe philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a \r\ncommentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by \r\nother, probably pre-Neoplatonic, hands survive,8 exposition of the \r\nNicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group \r\nof Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fYDdU8vNuJj4BJd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":109,"full_name":"Duffy, John","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":110,"full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":784,"section_of":35,"pages":"103-119","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":35,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Duffy1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"This volume, dedicated to the scholar Leendert G. Westerink, comprises 16 articles across two main areas of his research interests: Neo-Platonic and Byzantine studies. The six Neo-Platonic articles explore subjects such as manuscript histories, philosophical debates, and influences of figures like Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus. Notably, Father Saffrey investigates an anonymous commentary on Parmenides, while other authors delve into Neo-Platonic mathematics, hymns, and commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason.\r\n\r\nThe ten Byzantine studies articles cover a diverse range of historical and cultural insights. Topics include Byzantine letter-writing practices, with George Dennis highlighting humor in personal correspondence, and Cyril Mango examining the collapse of St. Sophia. Further articles focus on figures such as Psellus, Patriarch Cosmas, and fourteenth-century scholar Georgios Karbones, alongside explorations of political and religious tensions in the Ionian Islands under various European rulers. This collection offers an in-depth look at both Neo-Platonic philosophy and Byzantine cultural dynamics, illustrating the intellectual legacy of Westerink\u2019s scholarship. [summary of Lucas Siorvanes' Review]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QCXOrqqEdxnvWCD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":35,"pubplace":"Buffalo \u2013 New York","publisher":"Arethusa","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1988]}

Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio, 1988
By: Linguiti, Alessandro
Title Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 1988
Journal Studi Classici e Orientali
Volume 38
Pages 331–346
Categories no categories
Author(s) Linguiti, Alessandro
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
I commentatori neoplatonici di Aristotele sono stati probabilmente gli ultimi a beneficiare del generale risveglio d’interesse per il neoplatonismo che, manifestatosi a partire dal secondo dopoguerra, sta divenendo sempre più evidente negli ultimi anni. Per lungo tempo, come è stato osservato, essi hanno occupato una sorta di terra di nessuno tra la filosofia antica e quella medievale. Inoltre, gli studiosi di neoplatonismo hanno preferito concentrare la loro attenzione sulle opere teoriche originali piuttosto che sui commentari, mentre i moderni interpreti di Aristotele, a differenza di quelli medievali, arabi o cristiani, hanno generalmente trascurato il commento greco, interpellandolo perlopiù su questioni particolari e circoscritte, e quasi mai esaminandolo nel suo impianto generale. Anche Simplicio ha condiviso questa sorte, e se il suo nome suona più familiare di quello di altri autori neoplatonici, ciò è dovuto essenzialmente all’importanza della sua testimonianza sulla scuola eleatica e all’interesse suscitato dalle dottrine contenute nel Corollario sul tempo: due elementi tutto sommato marginali ai fini di una valutazione complessiva del suo pensiero. Negli ultimi tempi, tuttavia, il panorama si sta modificando. Basti pensare, ad esempio, al libro di Ilsetraut Hadot sul neoplatonismo alessandrino apparso dieci anni fa, o a un convegno tenutosi a Parigi nell’autunno del 1985, con il patrocinio del Centre de recherche sur les œuvres et la pensée de Simplicius. Questo evento ha confermato la serietà dell’intento di leggere oggi i commentari neoplatonici come opere filosofiche a sé stanti, dotate di una propria coerenza interna e di un’autonoma responsabilità teorica. Gli atti del convegno, curati da Ilsetraut Hadot, sono stati pubblicati nel 1987: le relazioni presentate sono state distribuite in quattro sezioni, riguardanti rispettivamente le vicende biografiche di Simplicio, gli aspetti dottrinali dell’opera, le questioni attinenti alla trasmissione dei testi e la fortuna dell’autore nell’arco di tempo compreso tra il XIII e il XVII secolo. [introduction p. 331-332]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"871","_score":null,"_source":{"id":871,"authors_free":[{"id":1280,"entry_id":871,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":250,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Linguiti, Alessandro","free_first_name":"Alessandro","free_last_name":"Linguiti","norm_person":{"id":250,"first_name":"Alessandro","last_name":"Linguiti","full_name":"Linguiti, Alessandro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137059574","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio"},"abstract":"I commentatori neoplatonici di Aristotele sono stati probabilmente gli ultimi a beneficiare del generale risveglio d\u2019interesse per il neoplatonismo che, manifestatosi a partire dal secondo dopoguerra, sta divenendo sempre pi\u00f9 evidente negli ultimi anni. Per lungo tempo, come \u00e8 stato osservato, essi hanno occupato una sorta di terra di nessuno tra la filosofia antica e quella medievale. Inoltre, gli studiosi di neoplatonismo hanno preferito concentrare la loro attenzione sulle opere teoriche originali piuttosto che sui commentari, mentre i moderni interpreti di Aristotele, a differenza di quelli medievali, arabi o cristiani, hanno generalmente trascurato il commento greco, interpellandolo perlopi\u00f9 su questioni particolari e circoscritte, e quasi mai esaminandolo nel suo impianto generale.\r\n\r\nAnche Simplicio ha condiviso questa sorte, e se il suo nome suona pi\u00f9 familiare di quello di altri autori neoplatonici, ci\u00f2 \u00e8 dovuto essenzialmente all\u2019importanza della sua testimonianza sulla scuola eleatica e all\u2019interesse suscitato dalle dottrine contenute nel Corollario sul tempo: due elementi tutto sommato marginali ai fini di una valutazione complessiva del suo pensiero.\r\n\r\nNegli ultimi tempi, tuttavia, il panorama si sta modificando. Basti pensare, ad esempio, al libro di Ilsetraut Hadot sul neoplatonismo alessandrino apparso dieci anni fa, o a un convegno tenutosi a Parigi nell\u2019autunno del 1985, con il patrocinio del Centre de recherche sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius. Questo evento ha confermato la seriet\u00e0 dell\u2019intento di leggere oggi i commentari neoplatonici come opere filosofiche a s\u00e9 stanti, dotate di una propria coerenza interna e di un\u2019autonoma responsabilit\u00e0 teorica.\r\n\r\nGli atti del convegno, curati da Ilsetraut Hadot, sono stati pubblicati nel 1987: le relazioni presentate sono state distribuite in quattro sezioni, riguardanti rispettivamente le vicende biografiche di Simplicio, gli aspetti dottrinali dell\u2019opera, le questioni attinenti alla trasmissione dei testi e la fortuna dell\u2019autore nell\u2019arco di tempo compreso tra il XIII e il XVII secolo.\r\n[introduction p. 331-332]","btype":3,"date":"1988","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6LG7LMnxCvxF7RE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":250,"full_name":"Linguiti, Alessandro","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":871,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studi Classici e Orientali","volume":"38","issue":"","pages":"331\u2013346"}},"sort":[1988]}

Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception, 1988
By: Mansfeld, Jaap, Broek, Roelof van den (Ed.), Baarda, Tjitze (Ed.), Mansfeld, Jaap (Ed.)
Title Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1988
Published in Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World
Pages 92-117
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mansfeld, Jaap
Editor(s) Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap
Translator(s)
Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God’s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos’ Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism—namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3–4, and in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (pp. 22.22–23.30 Diels). Here, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes’ position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that “spherical” means “homogeneous” and “unmoved” means “beyond motion and rest,” i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs. The accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the “doxographical vulgate”—i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus’ lost Physikai doxai—knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus. This attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes’ God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus. It also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes’ doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus’ negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"931","_score":null,"_source":{"id":931,"authors_free":[{"id":1378,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1379,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1380,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1381,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception","main_title":{"title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception"},"abstract":"Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God\u2019s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos\u2019 Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism\u2014namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3\u20134, and in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (pp. 22.22\u201323.30 Diels).\r\n\r\nHere, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes\u2019 position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that \u201cspherical\u201d means \u201chomogeneous\u201d and \u201cunmoved\u201d means \u201cbeyond motion and rest,\u201d i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs.\r\n\r\nThe accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the \u201cdoxographical vulgate\u201d\u2014i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus\u2019 lost Physikai doxai\u2014knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nThis attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes\u2019 God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes\u2019 doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus\u2019 negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":931,"section_of":337,"pages":"92-117","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":337,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"van_den_Broek1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1988]}

Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World, 1988
By: Broek, Roelof van den (Ed.), Baarda, Tjitze (Ed.), Mansfeld, Jaap (Ed.)
Title Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1988
Publication Place Leiden
Publisher Brill
Series Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain
Volume 112
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"337","_score":null,"_source":{"id":337,"authors_free":[{"id":434,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":435,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":436,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","main_title":{"title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1988","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1988]}

John Philoponus' criticism of Aristotle's theory of aether, 1988
By: Wildberg, Christian
Title John Philoponus' criticism of Aristotle's theory of aether
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1988
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Peripatoi
Volume 16
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wildberg, Christian
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The foremost aim of the contra Aristotelem is the denial of the thesis that the world is eternal. Apart from his rejection of Aristotle's argu-ments for the eternity of motion and time,21 Philoponus' criticism focuses on Aristotle's cosmology, in particular the seminal theory of aether. In books I —V of the original treatise Philoponus cites the arguments put forward in De cáelo 12 — 4 and attempts to refute them systematically.22 Due to the fragmentation of the treatise his objections can no longer be considered within their original context, and quite often the significance of particular points against Aristotle is not im-mediately obvious. In order to do Philoponus' arguments justice, one must analyse Aristotle's theory of aether before one embarks on commeriting on Philoponus' critique. Consequently, the present study con-sists of two major sections. The first part discusses the methodology and arguments of Aristotle's presentation of the theory of aether. Its aim is to understand and evaluate this important episode of ancient science within the framework of Aristotle's general physical theory. The second part deals with Philoponus' objections to the postu-lation of aether. The commentary attempts to evaluate the significance of the fragments of books I —V as a critique of Aristotle and, at the same time, to cast light on their relevance in the context of Philoponus' alternative cosmological theory. The essay concludes with a summary comparison of Aristotle's and Philoponus' cosmological tenets and a discussion of the importance of the contra Aristotelem when viewed as a stage in Philoponus' continuous doctrinal development which culminates in the application of impetus theory to the curvilinear movements of the heavens. [Introduction p. 4-5]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"187","_score":null,"_source":{"id":187,"authors_free":[{"id":243,"entry_id":187,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus' criticism of Aristotle's theory of aether","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus' criticism of Aristotle's theory of aether"},"abstract":"The foremost aim of the contra Aristotelem is the denial of the thesis that the world is eternal. Apart from his rejection of Aristotle's argu-ments for the eternity of motion and time,21 Philoponus' criticism focuses on Aristotle's cosmology, in particular the seminal theory of aether. In books I \u2014V of the original treatise Philoponus cites the arguments put forward in De c\u00e1elo 12 \u2014 4 and attempts to refute them systematically.22 Due to the fragmentation of the treatise his objections can no longer be considered within their original context, and quite often the significance of particular points against Aristotle is not im-mediately obvious. In order to do Philoponus' arguments justice, one must analyse Aristotle's theory of aether before one embarks on commeriting on Philoponus' critique. Consequently, the present study con-sists of two major sections. The first part discusses the methodology and arguments of Aristotle's presentation of the theory of aether. Its aim is to understand and evaluate this important episode of ancient science within the framework of Aristotle's general physical theory. The second part deals with Philoponus' objections to the postu-lation of aether. The commentary attempts to evaluate the significance of the fragments of books I \u2014V as a critique of Aristotle and, at the same time, to cast light on their relevance in the context of Philoponus' alternative cosmological theory. The essay concludes with a summary comparison of Aristotle's and Philoponus' cosmological tenets and a discussion of the importance of the contra Aristotelem when viewed as a stage in Philoponus' continuous doctrinal development which culminates in the application of impetus theory to the curvilinear movements of the heavens. [Introduction p. 4-5]","btype":1,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/J9OJ5u7Pb62D7np","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":187,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi ","volume":"16","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1988]}

Matter, Space, and Motion. Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel, 1988
By: Sorabji, Richard
Title Matter, Space, and Motion. Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1988
Publication Place London
Publisher Duckworth
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The nature of matter was as intriguing a question for ancient philosophers as it is for contemporary physicists, and Matter, Space, and Motion presents a fresh and illuminating account of the rich legacy of the physical theories of the Greeks from the fifth century B.C. to the late sixth century A.D. [a.a]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"5","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5,"authors_free":[{"id":5,"entry_id":5,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Matter, Space, and Motion. Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel","main_title":{"title":"Matter, Space, and Motion. Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel"},"abstract":"The nature of matter was as intriguing a question for ancient philosophers as it is for contemporary physicists, and Matter, Space, and Motion presents a fresh and illuminating account of the rich legacy of the physical theories of the Greeks from the fifth century B.C. to the late sixth century A.D. [a.a]","btype":1,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UMwsdcucXfrqkbZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":5,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1988]}

Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75, 1988
By: Duffy, John (Ed.), Peradotto, John J. (Ed.)
Title Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1988
Publication Place Buffalo – New York
Publisher Arethusa
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Duffy, John , Peradotto, John J.
Translator(s)
This volume, dedicated to the scholar Leendert G. Westerink, comprises 16 articles across two main areas of his research interests: Neo-Platonic and Byzantine studies. The six Neo-Platonic articles explore subjects such as manuscript histories, philosophical debates, and influences of figures like Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus. Notably, Father Saffrey investigates an anonymous commentary on Parmenides, while other authors delve into Neo-Platonic mathematics, hymns, and commentaries on Aristotle’s discussions of reason. The ten Byzantine studies articles cover a diverse range of historical and cultural insights. Topics include Byzantine letter-writing practices, with George Dennis highlighting humor in personal correspondence, and Cyril Mango examining the collapse of St. Sophia. Further articles focus on figures such as Psellus, Patriarch Cosmas, and fourteenth-century scholar Georgios Karbones, alongside explorations of political and religious tensions in the Ionian Islands under various European rulers. This collection offers an in-depth look at both Neo-Platonic philosophy and Byzantine cultural dynamics, illustrating the intellectual legacy of Westerink’s scholarship. [summary of Lucas Siorvanes' Review]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"35","_score":null,"_source":{"id":35,"authors_free":[{"id":41,"entry_id":35,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":109,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Duffy, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Duffy","norm_person":{"id":109,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Duffy","full_name":"Duffy, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032769092","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":42,"entry_id":35,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":110,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Peradotto, John J.","free_first_name":"John J.","free_last_name":"Peradotto","norm_person":{"id":110,"first_name":"John J.","last_name":"Peradotto","full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172304636","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75","main_title":{"title":"Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75"},"abstract":"This volume, dedicated to the scholar Leendert G. Westerink, comprises 16 articles across two main areas of his research interests: Neo-Platonic and Byzantine studies. The six Neo-Platonic articles explore subjects such as manuscript histories, philosophical debates, and influences of figures like Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus. Notably, Father Saffrey investigates an anonymous commentary on Parmenides, while other authors delve into Neo-Platonic mathematics, hymns, and commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason.\r\n\r\nThe ten Byzantine studies articles cover a diverse range of historical and cultural insights. Topics include Byzantine letter-writing practices, with George Dennis highlighting humor in personal correspondence, and Cyril Mango examining the collapse of St. Sophia. Further articles focus on figures such as Psellus, Patriarch Cosmas, and fourteenth-century scholar Georgios Karbones, alongside explorations of political and religious tensions in the Ionian Islands under various European rulers. This collection offers an in-depth look at both Neo-Platonic philosophy and Byzantine cultural dynamics, illustrating the intellectual legacy of Westerink\u2019s scholarship. [summary of Lucas Siorvanes' Review]","btype":4,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QCXOrqqEdxnvWCD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":109,"full_name":"Duffy, John","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":110,"full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":35,"pubplace":"Buffalo \u2013 New York","publisher":"Arethusa","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1988]}

Définition et description: Le problème de la saisie des genres premiers et des individus chez Aristote dans l'exégèse de Simplicius, 1987
By: Narbonne, Jean-Marc
Title Définition et description: Le problème de la saisie des genres premiers et des individus chez Aristote dans l'exégèse de Simplicius
Type Article
Language French
Date 1987
Journal Archives de Philosophie
Volume 50
Pages 529-554
Categories no categories
Author(s) Narbonne, Jean-Marc
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius uses (and distorts) the concept of hypographe (of Stoic origin) in order to describe the first genera and the particulars which, in Aristotle, are not susceptible to definition. However, a closer examination of the status of science in Aristotle (with reference to the doctrine of incommunicability of genera and the problem of individuation) shows that Simplicius’ attempt is incompatible, or at least difficult to reconcile, with the aristotelianism (of Aristotle). [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1107","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1107,"authors_free":[{"id":1674,"entry_id":1107,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"D\u00e9finition et description: Le probl\u00e8me de la saisie des genres premiers et des individus chez Aristote dans l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"D\u00e9finition et description: Le probl\u00e8me de la saisie des genres premiers et des individus chez Aristote dans l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius uses (and distorts) the concept of hypographe (of Stoic origin) in order to describe the first genera and the particulars which, in Aristotle, are not susceptible to definition. However, a closer examination of the status of science in Aristotle (with reference to the doctrine of incommunicability of genera and the problem of individuation) shows that Simplicius\u2019 attempt is incompatible, or at least difficult to reconcile, with the aristotelianism (of Aristotle). [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/o2VUk12kzrbnaz0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1107,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archives de Philosophie","volume":"50","issue":"","pages":"529-554"}},"sort":[1987]}

La relation chez Simplicius, 1987
By: Luna, Concetta, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title La relation chez Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 113-147
Categories no categories
Author(s) Luna, Concetta
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
This text is about Simplicius' doctrine of the relation. Although Simplicius did not dedicate a specific treatise to the relation, his views can be reconstructed from his commentary on Aristotle's Categories and certain passages in his commentary on Physics. Simplicius' approach to the Categories builds upon a rich tradition of commentaries, and he offers both questions and solutions in his own commentary. The author argues that Simplicius' elaboration of the concept of relation is not necessarily original, but his writings present a valuable contribution to the clarification of the concept. The text also discusses other traditions of reflection on the categories, such as those of the Academy and the Stoics. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1116","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1116,"authors_free":[{"id":1685,"entry_id":1116,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":458,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Luna, Concetta","free_first_name":"Concetta","free_last_name":"Luna","norm_person":{"id":458,"first_name":"Concetta","last_name":"Luna","full_name":"Luna, Concetta","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1153489031","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1686,"entry_id":1116,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La relation chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La relation chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"This text is about Simplicius' doctrine of the relation. Although Simplicius did not dedicate a specific treatise to the relation, his views can be reconstructed from his commentary on Aristotle's Categories and certain passages in his commentary on Physics. Simplicius' approach to the Categories builds upon a rich tradition of commentaries, and he offers both questions and solutions in his own commentary. The author argues that Simplicius' elaboration of the concept of relation is not necessarily original, but his writings present a valuable contribution to the clarification of the concept. The text also discusses other traditions of reflection on the categories, such as those of the Academy and the Stoics. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/B73LnGwsUzauanV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":458,"full_name":"Luna, Concetta","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1116,"section_of":171,"pages":"113-147","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the ‘Categories’, 1987
By: Strange, Steven, K., Haase, Wolfgang (Ed.)
Title Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the ‘Categories’
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie
Pages 955-974
Categories no categories
Author(s) Strange, Steven, K.
Editor(s) Haase, Wolfgang
Translator(s)
The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus’ treatises, On the Genera of Being (Περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle’s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1–24), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories. At the same time, Plotinus’ student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories. This impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1–12) and Simplicius (2.3–8) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus’ objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry’s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus’ and Simplicius’ commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry’s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus’ lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this. Moreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry’s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle. My purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus’ discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus’ and Porphyry’s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry’s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus’ arguments. The consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role. My discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd. Then I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism. In the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus’ position and Porphyry’s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957]

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

Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements, 1987
By: Mueller, Ian, Pépin, Jean (Ed.), Saffrey, Henri Dominique (Ed.)
Title Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)
Pages 305-318
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mueller, Ian
Editor(s) Pépin, Jean , Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Translator(s)
In the prologue to his commentary on book I of Euclid’s Elements Proclus refers to two areas of disagreement among the Platonists concerning mathematics. In the first passage in which he does this (29.14ff.) he indicates that some philoi from his own hearth encourage students to disdain mathematics, enlisting on their side Plato himself because of some of Socrates’ remarks in the Republic, notably the rhetorical question of 533 c 3-5 [...]. The second passage comes at the end of Proclus’ famous description of the character of geometry [...]. In this paper I wish to pursue these disagreements in the hopes of throwing light on distinctive features of Proclus’ philosophy of mathematics. [Introduction, p. 305]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1211","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1211,"authors_free":[{"id":1792,"entry_id":1211,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1793,"entry_id":1211,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":227,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":{"id":227,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"P\u00e9pin","full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119165147","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2119,"entry_id":1211,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements","main_title":{"title":"Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements"},"abstract":"In the prologue to his commentary on book I of Euclid\u2019s Elements Proclus refers to two areas of disagreement among the Platonists concerning mathematics. In the first passage in which he does this (29.14ff.) he indicates that some philoi from his own hearth encourage \r\nstudents to disdain mathematics, enlisting on their side Plato himself because of some of Socrates\u2019 remarks in the Republic, notably the rhetorical question of 533 c 3-5 [...]. The second passage comes at the end of Proclus\u2019 famous description of the character of geometry [...]. In this paper I wish to pursue these disagreements in the hopes of throwing light on distinctive features of Proclus\u2019 philosophy of mathematics. [Introduction, p. 305]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KU98nZhkgyJWbsr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":227,"full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1211,"section_of":159,"pages":"305-318","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":159,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"P\u00e9pin-Saffrey1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Du 5e si\u00e8cle jusqu'au d\u00e9but du 19e si\u00e8cle, Proclus fut consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme l'h\u00e9ritier par excellence de Platon, celui qui avait su tirer des dialogues un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique et coh\u00e9rent de la philosophie platonicienne. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QluMshmjYrV5JtV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":159,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre national de la recherche scientifique","series":"Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote, 1987
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 225-245
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
The text discusses research on the fragments of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. It focuses on a scholia found in Codex Regius (Paris, gr. 1853) that mentions Simplicius as the author of a commentary on Aristotle's work. The scholia refers to a specific passage in Metaphysics I, 983 b 8, where the interpretation of the term "eidos" creates difficulties. The scholia contrasts the interpretations proposed by Alexandre d'Aphrodise and Simplicius, highlighting their differing views on the meaning of "eidos." The author argues that the scholia indicates familiarity with Simplicius' commentary, suggesting that Simplicius was known and studied in the first half of the 13th century. The scholia also mentions Michel d'Ephese and Jean Italos, providing clues about the context and potential dating of the scholia's composition. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"669","_score":null,"_source":{"id":669,"authors_free":[{"id":980,"entry_id":669,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":981,"entry_id":669,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"The text discusses research on the fragments of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. It focuses on a scholia found in Codex Regius (Paris, gr. 1853) that mentions Simplicius as the author of a commentary on Aristotle's work. The scholia refers to a specific passage in Metaphysics I, 983 b 8, where the interpretation of the term \"eidos\" creates difficulties. The scholia contrasts the interpretations proposed by Alexandre d'Aphrodise and Simplicius, highlighting their differing views on the meaning of \"eidos.\" The author argues that the scholia indicates familiarity with Simplicius' commentary, suggesting that Simplicius was known and studied in the first half of the 13th century. The scholia also mentions Michel d'Ephese and Jean Italos, providing clues about the context and potential dating of the scholia's composition. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/R2DUCY7PTorhIy2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":669,"section_of":171,"pages":"225-245","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Sur quelques aspects de la polémique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l’invective à la réaffirmation de la transcendance du ciel, 1987
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Sur quelques aspects de la polémique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l’invective à la réaffirmation de la transcendance du ciel
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 183-221
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
Le Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote, vaste ouvrage exégétique conçu comme un hymne au Démiurge, présente une doctrine fondamentale sur la structure physique de la substance céleste : celle-ci, nous dit Simplicius, est un mélange des cimes (akrotêtes) des quatre éléments, c'est-à-dire un mélange des quatre éléments dans leur état le plus principiel et le plus pur, et dans ce mélange prédomine la cime, purement lumineuse, du feu. Cette doctrine n'est pas, quant à ses matériaux conceptuels, une création neuve ou originale de Simplicius, car de manière plus détaillée encore, on la rencontre dans le troisième livre du Commentaire de Proclus au Timée. Mais je voudrais montrer, dans le cadre d'une interprétation générale du Commentaire au De caelo, que Simplicius en donne une démonstration et en fait un usage qui lui sont propres, et qui se comprennent en grande partie comme une réaction face aux théories de Jean Philopon. Ce dernier s'était appuyé sur le Timée pour réfuter la doctrine aristotélicienne de la quintessence et de l'éternité du monde, et il niait, bien avant Copernic, toute différence substantielle entre les cieux et le monde sublunaire. Réfutant les théories du Contra Aristotelem de Philopon, Simplicius réaffirme la divinité, la transcendance et l’éternité du ciel, dans une exégèse qui vise à harmoniser (et non à opposer) le Timée et le De caelo. Cette exégèse est un acte religieux, un exercice spirituel qui convertit l'âme (celle de Simplicius et celle de son lecteur) vers le Démiurge. Cette conversion est une initiation aux grandeurs du monde et du ciel, et la description de la nature physique du ciel est l’un des contenus les plus précieux de la révélation. Celle-ci ne peut être procurée aux lecteurs momentanément abusés par Philopon qu’au terme d’une purification préparatoire, qui est la réfutation des analyses du Contra Aristotelem. Ainsi, la polémique de Simplicius est orientée vers une visée indissolublement philosophique et religieuse : lire et interpréter correctement le De caelo d’Aristote, ce n’est pas seulement acquérir des connaissances intellectuelles, c’est aussi, et surtout, s’élever par la pensée (mais de manière « vécue ») jusqu’au monde et au Démiurge, c’est leur adresser une prière. Au sacrilège blasphématoire du chrétien Philopon répond la liturgie néoplatonicienne, juste célébration du Dieu. [introduction p. 183-184]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"688","_score":null,"_source":{"id":688,"authors_free":[{"id":1022,"entry_id":688,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1023,"entry_id":688,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Sur quelques aspects de la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l\u2019invective \u00e0 la r\u00e9affirmation de la transcendance du ciel","main_title":{"title":"Sur quelques aspects de la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l\u2019invective \u00e0 la r\u00e9affirmation de la transcendance du ciel"},"abstract":"Le Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote, vaste ouvrage ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique con\u00e7u comme un hymne au D\u00e9miurge, pr\u00e9sente une doctrine fondamentale sur la structure physique de la substance c\u00e9leste : celle-ci, nous dit Simplicius, est un m\u00e9lange des cimes (akrot\u00eates) des quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments, c'est-\u00e0-dire un m\u00e9lange des quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments dans leur \u00e9tat le plus principiel et le plus pur, et dans ce m\u00e9lange pr\u00e9domine la cime, purement lumineuse, du feu.\r\n\r\nCette doctrine n'est pas, quant \u00e0 ses mat\u00e9riaux conceptuels, une cr\u00e9ation neuve ou originale de Simplicius, car de mani\u00e8re plus d\u00e9taill\u00e9e encore, on la rencontre dans le troisi\u00e8me livre du Commentaire de Proclus au Tim\u00e9e. Mais je voudrais montrer, dans le cadre d'une interpr\u00e9tation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du Commentaire au De caelo, que Simplicius en donne une d\u00e9monstration et en fait un usage qui lui sont propres, et qui se comprennent en grande partie comme une r\u00e9action face aux th\u00e9ories de Jean Philopon. Ce dernier s'\u00e9tait appuy\u00e9 sur le Tim\u00e9e pour r\u00e9futer la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la quintessence et de l'\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du monde, et il niait, bien avant Copernic, toute diff\u00e9rence substantielle entre les cieux et le monde sublunaire.\r\n\r\nR\u00e9futant les th\u00e9ories du Contra Aristotelem de Philopon, Simplicius r\u00e9affirme la divinit\u00e9, la transcendance et l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du ciel, dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se qui vise \u00e0 harmoniser (et non \u00e0 opposer) le Tim\u00e9e et le De caelo. Cette ex\u00e9g\u00e8se est un acte religieux, un exercice spirituel qui convertit l'\u00e2me (celle de Simplicius et celle de son lecteur) vers le D\u00e9miurge. Cette conversion est une initiation aux grandeurs du monde et du ciel, et la description de la nature physique du ciel est l\u2019un des contenus les plus pr\u00e9cieux de la r\u00e9v\u00e9lation. Celle-ci ne peut \u00eatre procur\u00e9e aux lecteurs momentan\u00e9ment abus\u00e9s par Philopon qu\u2019au terme d\u2019une purification pr\u00e9paratoire, qui est la r\u00e9futation des analyses du Contra Aristotelem.\r\n\r\nAinsi, la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius est orient\u00e9e vers une vis\u00e9e indissolublement philosophique et religieuse : lire et interpr\u00e9ter correctement le De caelo d\u2019Aristote, ce n\u2019est pas seulement acqu\u00e9rir des connaissances intellectuelles, c\u2019est aussi, et surtout, s\u2019\u00e9lever par la pens\u00e9e (mais de mani\u00e8re \u00ab v\u00e9cue \u00bb) jusqu\u2019au monde et au D\u00e9miurge, c\u2019est leur adresser une pri\u00e8re. Au sacril\u00e8ge blasph\u00e9matoire du chr\u00e9tien Philopon r\u00e9pond la liturgie n\u00e9oplatonicienne, juste c\u00e9l\u00e9bration du Dieu. [introduction p. 183-184]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wBslsmZjGCgfHjc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":688,"section_of":171,"pages":"183-221","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

La division néoplatonicienne des écrits d'Aristote, 1987
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title La division néoplatonicienne des écrits d'Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Pages 249-285
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Nous pouvons donc résumer en quelques mots le résultat de nos recherches. La division des écrits d’Aristote, telle quelle est présen­tée dans les commentaires néoplatoniciens, est, prise dans son ensem­ble, un pur produit de la philosophie néoplatonicienne, produit qui intègre néanmoins quelques éléments qui remontent à une époque antérieure à cette philosophie. Ce qui me paraît être typiquement et exclusivement néoplatonicien, c’est la division des écrits aristotéli­ciens en écrits particuliers, intermédiaires et généraux. D’abord, la place des Lettres au début de la liste est une particularité que la divi­sion néoplatonicienne ne partage, à ma connaissance, avec aucune autre liste non seulement d’écrits aristotéliciens, mais aussi d’écrits de n’importe quel auteur. Ensuite, la catégorie des écrits intermédi­aires ne peut avoir de sens qu’à l’intérieur du système néoplatonicien, car elle sert surtout à se débarrasser d’un certain nombre d’écrits bio­ logiques d’Aristote, parce que ceux-ci n’avaient pas de place dans le cursus philosophique néoplatonicien. Pour les péripatéticiens au con­ traire, ces écrits rentraient tout simplement dans la partie physique de la philosophie, comme Simplicius nous l’apprend au début de son commentaire sur la Physique128, où il reproduit le classement péripatéticien des écrits physiques d’Aristote. Pour les péripatéticiens, comme d’ailleurs pour n’importe quel auteur de Pinax, le fait de séparer les écrits d’Aristote se rapportant aux choses de la nature en deux catégories, l’une qui comprendrait des écrits «intermédiaires», l’autre qui rassemblerait les écrits physiques et correspondrait à une subdivision des écrits généraux, ne pouvait avoir aucun sens. Cette séparation n’était possible que dans la perspective de l’ontologie néoplatonicienne. Il y a d’ailleurs confusion des deux systèmes dans la division de David. Il respecte d’abord la division néoplatonicienne en écrits particuliers, intermédiaires et généraux en donnant des exemples adéquats pour chaque rubrique, mais quand il arrive à la rubrique physique des écrits théorétiques, il suit, en énumérant des exemples, la liste péripatéticienne ou tout simplement le pinax des écrits d’Aristote qui se trouvait à la suite de sa biographie. Il répète donc quelques titres qu’il avait auparavant classés dans les écrits intermédiaires et ajoute bon nombre de traités qui, selon le point de vue néoplatonicien, n’ont rien à voir avec la philosophie. [conclusion, p. 284-285]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"697","_score":null,"_source":{"id":697,"authors_free":[{"id":1036,"entry_id":697,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1037,"entry_id":697,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La division n\u00e9oplatonicienne des \u00e9crits d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"La division n\u00e9oplatonicienne des \u00e9crits d'Aristote"},"abstract":"Nous pouvons donc r\u00e9sumer en quelques mots le r\u00e9sultat de nos recherches. La division des \u00e9crits d\u2019Aristote, telle quelle est pr\u00e9sen\u00adt\u00e9e dans les commentaires n\u00e9oplatoniciens, est, prise dans son ensem\u00adble, un pur produit de la philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne, produit qui int\u00e8gre n\u00e9anmoins quelques \u00e9l\u00e9ments qui remontent \u00e0 une \u00e9poque ant\u00e9rieure \u00e0 cette philosophie. Ce qui me para\u00eet \u00eatre typiquement et exclusivement n\u00e9oplatonicien, c\u2019est la division des \u00e9crits aristot\u00e9li\u00adciens en \u00e9crits particuliers, interm\u00e9diaires et g\u00e9n\u00e9raux. D\u2019abord, la \r\nplace des Lettres au d\u00e9but de la liste est une particularit\u00e9 que la divi\u00adsion n\u00e9oplatonicienne ne partage, \u00e0 ma connaissance, avec aucune \r\nautre liste non seulement d\u2019\u00e9crits aristot\u00e9liciens, mais aussi d\u2019\u00e9crits de n\u2019importe quel auteur. Ensuite, la cat\u00e9gorie des \u00e9crits interm\u00e9di\u00adaires ne peut avoir de sens qu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur du syst\u00e8me n\u00e9oplatonicien, car elle sert surtout \u00e0 se d\u00e9barrasser d\u2019un certain nombre d\u2019\u00e9crits bio\u00ad\r\nlogiques d\u2019Aristote, parce que ceux-ci n\u2019avaient pas de place dans le cursus philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicien. Pour les p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens au con\u00ad\r\ntraire, ces \u00e9crits rentraient tout simplement dans la partie physique de la philosophie, comme Simplicius nous l\u2019apprend au d\u00e9but de son commentaire sur la Physique128, o\u00f9 il reproduit le classement p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien des \u00e9crits physiques d\u2019Aristote. Pour les p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, \r\ncomme d\u2019ailleurs pour n\u2019importe quel auteur de Pinax, le fait de s\u00e9parer les \u00e9crits d\u2019Aristote se rapportant aux choses de la nature en \r\ndeux cat\u00e9gories, l\u2019une qui comprendrait des \u00e9crits \u00abinterm\u00e9diaires\u00bb, l\u2019autre qui rassemblerait les \u00e9crits physiques et correspondrait \u00e0 une \r\nsubdivision des \u00e9crits g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, ne pouvait avoir aucun sens. Cette s\u00e9paration n\u2019\u00e9tait possible que dans la perspective de l\u2019ontologie \r\nn\u00e9oplatonicienne. Il y a d\u2019ailleurs confusion des deux syst\u00e8mes dans la division de David. Il respecte d\u2019abord la division n\u00e9oplatonicienne \r\nen \u00e9crits particuliers, interm\u00e9diaires et g\u00e9n\u00e9raux en donnant des exemples ad\u00e9quats pour chaque rubrique, mais quand il arrive \u00e0 la \r\nrubrique physique des \u00e9crits th\u00e9or\u00e9tiques, il suit, en \u00e9num\u00e9rant des exemples, la liste p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne ou tout simplement le pinax des \u00e9crits d\u2019Aristote qui se trouvait \u00e0 la suite de sa biographie. Il r\u00e9p\u00e8te donc quelques titres qu\u2019il avait auparavant class\u00e9s dans les \u00e9crits \r\ninterm\u00e9diaires et ajoute bon nombre de trait\u00e9s qui, selon le point de vue n\u00e9oplatonicien, n\u2019ont rien \u00e0 voir avec la philosophie. [conclusion, p. 284-285]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GosX6JCGE0N12qC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":697,"section_of":189,"pages":"249-285","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Catégories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du “skopos” du traité aristotélicien des “Catégories”, 1987
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Catégories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du “skopos” du traité aristotélicien des “Catégories”
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 61-90
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories is the first among three commentaries left by the renowned Neoplatonic philosopher. This commentary holds a significant place in the study of Aristotle's works, as it marks the beginning of the reading of Aristotle's oeuvre from a spiritual perspective. The prayer at the end of Simplicius' commentary highlights the transformative power of studying Aristotle's Categories, allowing the soul to ascend to higher knowledge and seek ultimate happiness. Simplicius' other commentaries, such as his work on Epictetus and De Caelo, similarly express the journey of spiritual conversion and progressive ascension to higher realities within the Neoplatonic spiritual framework. The Neoplatonic curriculum involved an ethical initiation, leading to the study of Aristotle's works and culminating in the study of Plato's Timaeus and Parmenides. Overall, Simplicius' exegesis of Aristotle's Categories reveals the profound spiritual significance and transformative potential of philosophical studies within the Neoplatonic tradition. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"709","_score":null,"_source":{"id":709,"authors_free":[{"id":1057,"entry_id":709,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1058,"entry_id":709,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cat\u00e9gories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du \u201cskopos\u201d du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des \u201cCat\u00e9gories\u201d","main_title":{"title":"Cat\u00e9gories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du \u201cskopos\u201d du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des \u201cCat\u00e9gories\u201d"},"abstract":"Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories is the first among three commentaries left by the renowned Neoplatonic philosopher. This commentary holds a significant place in the study of Aristotle's works, as it marks the beginning of the reading of Aristotle's oeuvre from a spiritual perspective. The prayer at the end of Simplicius' commentary highlights the transformative power of studying Aristotle's Categories, allowing the soul to ascend to higher knowledge and seek ultimate happiness. Simplicius' other commentaries, such as his work on Epictetus and De Caelo, similarly express the journey of spiritual conversion and progressive ascension to higher realities within the Neoplatonic spiritual framework. The Neoplatonic curriculum involved an ethical initiation, leading to the study of Aristotle's works and culminating in the study of Plato's Timaeus and Parmenides. Overall, Simplicius' exegesis of Aristotle's Categories reveals the profound spiritual significance and transformative potential of philosophical studies within the Neoplatonic tradition. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z4JuOtqVWGpQ7Ef","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":709,"section_of":171,"pages":"61-90","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius‘ polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens, 1987
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius‘ polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition
Pages 97-123
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
I am not entirely comfortable finding myself introducing a discordant note into a collection intended to celebrate the refreshing originality of Philoponus’ ideas. I shall, however, be speaking for Simplicius, vindictive pagan that he was, and shall hope to be an effective counterweight to what is said in other chapters. I shall be talking within the framework of a general interpretation of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo. The commentary is an exegetical work undertaken as a paean to the Creator or ‘Demiurge.’ Its basic theory on the physical structure of celestial matter is that this matter is a combination of the superior parts (akrotêtes) of the four elements, dominated by the purely luminous superior part of fire. My aim will be to show how this theory can be seen as a reaction to the theories of John Philoponus. Philoponus had turned to the Timaeus for support in his Contra Aristotelem and had attacked the Aristotelian doctrine that the heavens are made of a fifth element and that the world is eternal. Well before Copernicus, Philoponus denied that there was any substantial difference between the heavens and the sublunary world. In his reply to the Contra Aristotelem, Simplicius reaffirms the divinity, the transcendence, and the eternal nature of the heavens. His exegesis aims to connect, rather than contrast, Plato’s Timaeus and Aristotle’s De caelo. It is, moreover, a religious act, a spiritual exercise designed to turn the soul (both Simplicius’ and his reader’s) towards the Demiurge. This conversion is our initiation into the grandeur of the universe and of the heavens, and his description of the physical nature of the heavens is one of the most valuable aspects of the revelation. Those readers still under Philoponus’ spell cannot achieve this revelation until they have undergone a preliminary act of purification, which is the refutation of the arguments of Philoponus’ Contra Aristotelem. In this way, Simplicius’ attack is directed at a target that is simultaneously philosophical and religious. A correct reading and interpretation of Aristotle’s De caelo leads not only to the acquisition of intellectual knowledge but also, and above all, to our elevation through thought (a thought that we live) to the whole universe and to the Demiurge. It is a form of prayer addressed to them. The sacrilegious blasphemy of the Christian Philoponus is countered by the Neoplatonist liturgy, a rightful celebration of their God. [introduction p. 97-98]

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

Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics, 1987
By: Wolff, Michael, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science
Pages 84-120
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wolff, Michael
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
If we are prepared to assume that the basic presuppositions of impetus theory can be traced back not to observational experience which Aristotle missed, but rather to a certain concept of man and to certain ethical principles, we need not attempt to explain the emergence of the theory solely by reference to new observations of falling bodies and the like. Is it not more appropriate to ask about the origin and kind of ethical problem to which impetus theory originally helped to provide an answer? The experience that forces are exhausted in all physical activities of human beings could have been just such a problem. Earlier society, which had left this experience chiefly to slaves, could not really have had such a problem. But, by the close of Antiquity, times were changing. [Conclusion p. 120]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"720","_score":null,"_source":{"id":720,"authors_free":[{"id":1073,"entry_id":720,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":364,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wolff, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Wolff","norm_person":{"id":364,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Wolff","full_name":"Wolff, Michael","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131523120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1074,"entry_id":720,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics"},"abstract":"If we are prepared to assume that the basic presuppositions of impetus theory \r\ncan be traced back not to observational experience which Aristotle missed, \r\nbut rather to a certain concept of man and to certain ethical principles, we \r\nneed not attempt to explain the emergence of the theory solely by reference to \r\nnew observations of falling bodies and the like. Is it not more appropriate to \r\nask about the origin and kind of ethical problem to which impetus theory \r\noriginally helped to provide an answer? The experience that forces are \r\nexhausted in all physical activities of human beings could have been just such \r\na problem. Earlier society, which had left this experience chiefly to slaves, \r\ncould not really have had such a problem. But, by the close of Antiquity, \r\ntimes were changing. [Conclusion p. 120]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/L1tFbjfO8UrPnAp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":364,"full_name":"Wolff, Michael","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":720,"section_of":1383,"pages":"84-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

The Text of Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, 1987
By: Tarán, Leonardo, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title The Text of Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 246-266
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarán, Leonardo
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
My main purpose here is to offer reasons why a new and truly critical edition of Simplicius' commentary is necessary. To do so, in what follows, I shall have to point out some of the shortcomings to be found in Diels' edition of this work. [p. 246]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"726","_score":null,"_source":{"id":726,"authors_free":[{"id":1085,"entry_id":726,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1086,"entry_id":726,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Text of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"The Text of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"My main purpose here is to offer reasons why a new and truly critical edition of Simplicius' commentary is necessary. To do so, in what follows, I shall have to point out some of the shortcomings to be found in Diels' edition of this work. [p. 246]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wSJkdX2PYdHh3n2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":726,"section_of":171,"pages":"246-266","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century, 1987
By: Schmitt, Charles Bernard, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition
Pages 210-230
Categories no categories
Author(s) Schmitt, Charles Bernard
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
As it is generally accepted, the term ‘Renaissance’ refers to a historical period in which there was a revival of interest in the literature, styles, and forms of Classical Antiquity. Though the ‘revival’ is usually understood to refer specifically to ancient ‘literary’ texts, there can be no doubt that the specialized technical treatises of philosophy, natural science, mathematics, and medicine played a role equally important, if not more important, in the cultural and intellectual life of the Renaissance. In addition to the rediscovery of the integral texts of Homer and the Greek dramatists, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, Quintilian, and Lucretius, the fifteenth century also saw the recovery of much of Galen, Theophrastus, Plato, Plotinus, and Proclus, Pappus, Diogenes Laertius, and Sextus Empiricus, as well as many additional classical authors of specialized literature. Indeed, the ‘Renaissance’ was a revival of the technical knowledge bequeathed by Antiquity as much as of works of recognized literary and rhetorical quality. One aspect of the influence of ancient literature on the Renaissance which has received little attention until fairly recently is the role of the Greek commentators on Aristotle. In that vast corpus, most of which is conveniently assembled for us in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, there is a wealth of interpretative and supplementary material, which is of great use not only for an understanding of the Aristotelian text itself but also for understanding its historical context and the philosophical positions that were in competition with those of Aristotle in antiquity. A certain number of the Greek commentaries were known in the Middle Ages, both in the Islamic and in the Christian worlds, but such knowledge was very fragmentary. Only a small portion of the extant commentaries was available in Latin before the sixteenth century. Some of these attained a degree of importance and played a central role in the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century discussions of the soul, for example. These medieval versions are presently being edited in a critical fashion by a group of scholars at Louvain; this series should take its place alongside the Greek texts produced in the last century by the Berlin Academy of Sciences. So far, editions of commentaries by Themistius, Ammonius, Philoponus, Simplicius, Alexander, and Eustratius have appeared. But it remained for the sixteenth century to make accessible most of the material. For example, less than half of the works attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias contained in the CAG and Supplementum Aristotelicum were available in the Middle Ages, and, among the expositions of Philoponus, only the commentary on the De Anima was available. The need for a comprehensive publication of all of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle was already noted and made a program for the future in Aldo Manuzio’s prefatory letter to the first volume of his editio princeps of Aristotle in 1495. Although Aldo himself did not live to achieve his aim, he did initiate it, and between that date and 1540 nearly the entire Greek corpus was made available to European scholars. Parallel with the publication of the Greek texts—and generally delayed by only a few years—was the publication of Latin translations of the same texts, thus making the material accessible to a much wider readership than the rather restricted group who could cope effectively with the Greek text of the commentators. Most of the Greek editions themselves, as well as the majority of the translations, issued from Venetian presses, though Paris and Lyon served as secondary publication centers. By mid-century essentially everything could be read in Latin, and the impact of the new material can be traced in the Aristotelian literature of the period. In reading the many commentaries on Aristotle and other philosophical works of the sixteenth century, one clearly discerns the rising tide of interest in these expositions across a spectrum of philosophical and scientific topics. Hitherto, the impact of these new sources of information has only imperfectly been charted, primarily with regard to discussions of the soul. Nardi’s fundamental work on Simplicius, the more recent studies on Alexander by Cranz, and on the general Neoplatonism of the commentaries by Mahoney have served to draw attention to the rich vein of material there to be mined. The range of the impact—in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, and psychology—has scarcely been charted, nor has the interplay between Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, and medieval and Renaissance Latin interpretations of Aristotle been evaluated and analyzed. During the second half of the sixteenth century, those who wanted to understand Aristotle—which for them meant philosophy tout court—frequently tried to relate the text of the Stagirite to the varying interpretations of Philoponus, Simplicius, Averroes (1126–98), Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–74), John of Jandun (died 1328), Pomponazzi (1462–1525), and Soto (1494/5–1560), among many others. Particularly little studied has been the impact of the newly available Greek commentators on the Physics. Here is meant primarily Simplicius and Philoponus, both of whom left behind extensive and detailed expositions of that work, neither of which was known directly to Latin writers of the Middle Ages but which were to become available in the sixteenth century. As long ago as Wohlwill and Duhem, it has been known that some of the criticisms and alternative positions put forward in the commentaries on the Physics by the two sixth-century writers later attained importance in the history of the development of physical thought. Moreover, it was also realized by the same historians that the critiques of Aristotle put forward by Simplicius and Philoponus were very similar to some of the positions that became central in the formulation of the ‘new science’ of the seventeenth century. Thus far, however, there has been little systematic attempt to consider the reaction of the sixteenth century as a whole to the reorientation made possible by the availability of Simplicius and Philoponus. The story is not simple, and it cannot be covered comprehensively here, though I hope to be able to indicate some lines further research might take. What I shall do is to focus upon Philoponus, whose significance in the story is possibly less than that of Simplicius, but without a full story of the fortune of the Physics of both authors a valid conclusion regarding their relative merits is not possible. Before turning to a consideration of the impact of the Grammarian’s partial commentary on the Physics (only the first four books are integrally extant), I should like to deal briefly with two other points. First, I should like to sketch a portrait of Philoponus as a commentator, emphasizing why what he had to say was of potential importance for the sixteenth century. Secondly, I shall say something general about the recovery and assimilation of his philosophical works in the West down to the sixteenth century. [introduction p. 210-213]

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

Empedocles Recycled, 1987
By: Osborne, Catherine
Title Empedocles Recycled
Type Article
Language English
Date 1987
Journal Classical Quarterly
Volume 37
Issue 1
Pages 24-50
Categories no categories
Author(s) Osborne, Catherine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
It is no longer generally believed that Empedocles was the divided character portrayed by nineteenth-century scholars, a man whose scientific and religious views were incompatible but untouched by each other. Yet it is still widely held that, however unitary his thought, nevertheless he still wrote more than one poem, and that his poems can be clearly divided between those which do, and those which do not, concern 'religious matters'.1 Once this assumption can be shown to be shaky or actually false, the grounds for dividing the quotations of Empedocles into two poems by subject matter disappear; and without that division our interpretation of Empedocles stands in need of radical revision. This paper starts with the modest task of showing that Empedocles may have written only one philosophical poem and not two, and goes on to suggest some of the ways in which we have to rethink the whole story if he did. If all our material belongs to one poem we are bound to link the cycle of the daimones with that of the elements, and this has far-reaching consequences for our interpretation. [Introduction, p. 24]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1092","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1092,"authors_free":[{"id":1650,"entry_id":1092,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":280,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Osborne, Catherine","free_first_name":"Catherine","free_last_name":"Osborne","norm_person":{"id":280,"first_name":"Catherine","last_name":"Rowett","full_name":"Rowett, Catherine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142220116","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles Recycled","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles Recycled"},"abstract":"It is no longer generally believed that Empedocles was the divided character portrayed by nineteenth-century scholars, a man whose scientific and religious views were incompatible but untouched by each other. Yet it is still widely held that, however unitary his thought, nevertheless he still wrote more than one poem, and that his poems can be clearly divided between those which do, and those which do not, concern \r\n'religious matters'.1 Once this assumption can be shown to be shaky or actually false, the grounds for dividing the quotations of Empedocles into two poems by subject matter disappear; and without that division our interpretation of Empedocles stands in need of radical revision. This paper starts with the modest task of showing that Empedocles may have written only one philosophical poem and not two, and goes on to suggest some of the ways in which we have to rethink the whole story if he did. If all our material belongs to one poem we are bound to link the cycle of the daimones with that of the elements, and this has far-reaching consequences for our \r\ninterpretation. [Introduction, p. 24]","btype":3,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IeJ48ZtTcIZFqmP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":280,"full_name":"Rowett, Catherine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1092,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Classical Quarterly","volume":"37","issue":"1","pages":"24-50"}},"sort":[1987]}

Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander’s Commentary on Metaph. E-N, 1987
By: Tarán, Leonardo, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander’s Commentary on Metaph. E-N
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Pages 215-232
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarán, Leonardo
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
The main conclusions of this study are two: (a) Neither Ps.-Alexander nor Syrianus had access to Alexander’s lost commentary on Metaphysics E-N. (b) For his commentary on books M-N, Syrianus made use of Ps.-Alexander’s commentary, which he mistook for the work of Alexander himself. [conclusion p. 231]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"797","_score":null,"_source":{"id":797,"authors_free":[{"id":1176,"entry_id":797,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1177,"entry_id":797,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander\u2019s Commentary on Metaph. E-N","main_title":{"title":"Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander\u2019s Commentary on Metaph. E-N"},"abstract":"The main conclusions of this study are two: (a) Neither Ps.-Alexander nor Syrianus had access to Alexander\u2019s lost commentary on Metaphysics E-N. (b) For his commentary on books M-N, Syrianus made use of Ps.-Alexander\u2019s commentary, which he mistook for the work of Alexander himself. [conclusion p. 231]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TQhCHWKXBejvsjI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":797,"section_of":189,"pages":"215-232","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Apories orales de Plotin sur les Catégories d’Aristote, 1987
By: Henry, Paul, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Apories orales de Plotin sur les Catégories d’Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Pages 120-156
Categories no categories
Author(s) Henry, Paul
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Les premières apories que Dexippe attribue explicitement à Plotin traitent du nombre des catégories, mais plus précisément sous l’aspect du rapport des catégories du monde intelligible à celles du monde sensible. Chez Simplicius aussi ces apories sont explicitement attribuées à Plotin. D’un monde à l’autre, les catégories sont-elles les mêmes ou différentes, ou bien les unes sont-elles les mêmes, les autres différentes ? Sont-elles en nombre égal, plus nombreuses, moins nombreuses ? C’est le problème préliminaire qu’examine Plotin au chapitre 1 de son premier traité VI 1, au début du chapitre 2 sur la substance et, une troisième fois, au début du chapitre 5 de son troisième traité, VI 3. Nos textes de base sont donc : VI 1,1,19-30 ; VI 1,2,1-8 ; VI 3,5,1-7, mais aussi VI 2,16,1-2 et VI 3,27,1-4. S’y réfèrent trois apories de Dexippe, mais l’une sous trois formes différentes – ce qui nous donne cinq petits textes – et deux longues pages de Simplicius, qui correspondent pour une part aux Ennéades, pour une part aux textes de Dexippe, mais qui toutes deux associent le nom de Plotin à celui de ses prédécesseurs. En outre, deux textes anonymes, l’un de Dexippe, l’autre de Simplicius. Les relations entre tous ces textes étant fort compliquées, il est utile de les énumérer ici, avec les sigles que je leur attribue, et dans l’ordre où je les étudie : 01 = Simpl. p. 73,15-28 (Plotin, Lucius et Nicostrate) 01b* = Dex. II 1 sommaire et aporie (anonymes) = Simpl. p. 73,15-16 (Plotin) 02 = Simpl. p. 73,25-27 (Plotin) 01a* = Dex. II 4 sommaire et aporie (Plotin) F1 = Simpl. p. 76,13-22 (Plotin et Nicostrate) F1 = Dex. II 2 aporie (dans le corps de l’ouvrage) (Plotin) 01c = Dex. II 2 sommaire (Plotin) 01e = Dex. II 2 solution (Plotin), cf. Simpl. 76,22-77,4 F2 = Dex. 138 solution (anonyme) = Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (anonyme) Bien que, au début, ces distinctions paraissent compliquées, la suite montrera qu’elles aident à clarifier les questions. Je signale tout de suite que le grand texte attribué au « très divin Plotin » par Simpl. p. 73,15-28 contient aussi ce que contiennent Dex. II 1, Dex. II 2 somm., et de nombreuses correspondances avec Dex. II 4. Nous finirons notre chapitre par un texte très court relatif au problème de l’opposé du mouvement, le repos, auquel font allusion Enn. VI 3,27,4-5, ainsi que Dex. I 38 sol., p. 34,17-19 (τις) et Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (τις), et qui, faisant partie d’une source composite, justifiera le sigle F2. Le tout est un chassé-croisé de références, un enchevêtrement de textes, de correspondances et de non-correspondances entre l’écrit, l’oral, les sources, à peu près inextricable, un des ensembles les plus complexes auxquels nous ayons jamais eu affaire. Dans ce fouillis, je vais m’efforcer d’introduire un peu d’ordre et de clarté. Patiemment, car il s’agit bien d’un jeu de patience, je répartirai de mon mieux ces fragments, qui chevauchent les uns sur les autres, entre deux séries, celle des reportata de l’enseignement oral (O) et celle des sources (F). Avec des coefficients variables de certitude ou de probabilité, je compte récupérer de la sorte deux fragments certains de l’oral, deux fragments très probables, un fragment simplement probable, enfin deux sources certaines. Dès les premiers textes, nous affrontons les trois principaux problèmes qui nous intéressent et cela, on l’a dit, dans une complexité plus grande qu’ailleurs. Le problème fondamental des rapports de l’écrit et de l’oral. Les limites entre l’un et l’autre sont parfois indécises, incertaines. Ce qui est sûr, c’est que l’oral, quand oral il y a, éclaire considérablement l’écrit, sorte de commentaire ou de résumé anticipé. Le problème de l’indépendance mutuelle de Dexippe et de Simplicius et de leur complémentarité. La question essentielle, souvent insoluble, est de savoir lequel des deux est le plus fidèle à la formulation de l’aporie orale ou de la source telle que les transmettait Porphyre, voire même le seul Jamblique. Le lecteur avisé s’apercevra sans peine que Simplicius ne peut vraiment dépendre de Dexippe ; il paraît ne jamais l’utiliser dans le corps de son ouvrage ; le nom n’apparaît qu’une seule fois, et cela dans la Préface, p. 2,25, où Simplicius énumère les commentateurs des Catégories, alors qu’ailleurs il n’a pas honte de citer fidèlement ses sources, notamment Porphyre et Jamblique. Enfin, le problème des sources de Plotin. Sources de l’oral ou de l’écrit ou de l’un et de l’autre. Ici même, par deux fois, un texte attribué par Simplicius à Plotin est attribué aussi, par lui, aux prédécesseurs de Plotin. Chez Dexippe, ce n’est pas le cas ici et ce sera toujours beaucoup plus rare. Les deux seuls points vraiment fermes et solides – ce ne sera pas toujours le cas – sont : primo, que les apories sont nettement authentifiées, citées sous le nom de Plotin, tant par Dexippe que par Simplicius, lequel souvent, ailleurs, se contente d’écrire « quelques-uns », là même où nous savons pertinemment qu’il s’agit de Plotin. Secundo, qu’une partie au moins des apories, tout en étant sûrement plotiniennes, n’ont aucun parallèle dans les Ennéades et proviennent donc de l’oral. [introduction p. 120-122]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"799","_score":null,"_source":{"id":799,"authors_free":[{"id":1179,"entry_id":799,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":175,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Henry, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Henry","norm_person":{"id":175,"first_name":"Paul","last_name":"Henry","full_name":"Henry, Paul","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1180,"entry_id":799,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Les premi\u00e8res apories que Dexippe attribue explicitement \u00e0 Plotin traitent du nombre des cat\u00e9gories, mais plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment sous l\u2019aspect du rapport des cat\u00e9gories du monde intelligible \u00e0 celles du monde sensible. Chez Simplicius aussi ces apories sont explicitement attribu\u00e9es \u00e0 Plotin. D\u2019un monde \u00e0 l\u2019autre, les cat\u00e9gories sont-elles les m\u00eames ou diff\u00e9rentes, ou bien les unes sont-elles les m\u00eames, les autres diff\u00e9rentes ? Sont-elles en nombre \u00e9gal, plus nombreuses, moins nombreuses ? C\u2019est le probl\u00e8me pr\u00e9liminaire qu\u2019examine Plotin au chapitre 1 de son premier trait\u00e9 VI 1, au d\u00e9but du chapitre 2 sur la substance et, une troisi\u00e8me fois, au d\u00e9but du chapitre 5 de son troisi\u00e8me trait\u00e9, VI 3. Nos textes de base sont donc : VI 1,1,19-30 ; VI 1,2,1-8 ; VI 3,5,1-7, mais aussi VI 2,16,1-2 et VI 3,27,1-4.\r\n\r\nS\u2019y r\u00e9f\u00e8rent trois apories de Dexippe, mais l\u2019une sous trois formes diff\u00e9rentes \u2013 ce qui nous donne cinq petits textes \u2013 et deux longues pages de Simplicius, qui correspondent pour une part aux Enn\u00e9ades, pour une part aux textes de Dexippe, mais qui toutes deux associent le nom de Plotin \u00e0 celui de ses pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseurs. En outre, deux textes anonymes, l\u2019un de Dexippe, l\u2019autre de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nLes relations entre tous ces textes \u00e9tant fort compliqu\u00e9es, il est utile de les \u00e9num\u00e9rer ici, avec les sigles que je leur attribue, et dans l\u2019ordre o\u00f9 je les \u00e9tudie :\r\n\r\n 01 = Simpl. p. 73,15-28 (Plotin, Lucius et Nicostrate)\r\n 01b* = Dex. II 1 sommaire et aporie (anonymes) = Simpl. p. 73,15-16 (Plotin)\r\n 02 = Simpl. p. 73,25-27 (Plotin)\r\n 01a* = Dex. II 4 sommaire et aporie (Plotin)\r\n F1 = Simpl. p. 76,13-22 (Plotin et Nicostrate)\r\n F1 = Dex. II 2 aporie (dans le corps de l\u2019ouvrage) (Plotin)\r\n 01c = Dex. II 2 sommaire (Plotin)\r\n 01e = Dex. II 2 solution (Plotin), cf. Simpl. 76,22-77,4\r\n F2 = Dex. 138 solution (anonyme) = Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (anonyme)\r\n\r\nBien que, au d\u00e9but, ces distinctions paraissent compliqu\u00e9es, la suite montrera qu\u2019elles aident \u00e0 clarifier les questions.\r\n\r\nJe signale tout de suite que le grand texte attribu\u00e9 au \u00ab tr\u00e8s divin Plotin \u00bb par Simpl. p. 73,15-28 contient aussi ce que contiennent Dex. II 1, Dex. II 2 somm., et de nombreuses correspondances avec Dex. II 4.\r\n\r\nNous finirons notre chapitre par un texte tr\u00e8s court relatif au probl\u00e8me de l\u2019oppos\u00e9 du mouvement, le repos, auquel font allusion Enn. VI 3,27,4-5, ainsi que Dex. I 38 sol., p. 34,17-19 (\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) et Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2), et qui, faisant partie d\u2019une source composite, justifiera le sigle F2.\r\n\r\nLe tout est un chass\u00e9-crois\u00e9 de r\u00e9f\u00e9rences, un enchev\u00eatrement de textes, de correspondances et de non-correspondances entre l\u2019\u00e9crit, l\u2019oral, les sources, \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s inextricable, un des ensembles les plus complexes auxquels nous ayons jamais eu affaire.\r\n\r\nDans ce fouillis, je vais m\u2019efforcer d\u2019introduire un peu d\u2019ordre et de clart\u00e9. Patiemment, car il s\u2019agit bien d\u2019un jeu de patience, je r\u00e9partirai de mon mieux ces fragments, qui chevauchent les uns sur les autres, entre deux s\u00e9ries, celle des reportata de l\u2019enseignement oral (O) et celle des sources (F).\r\n\r\nAvec des coefficients variables de certitude ou de probabilit\u00e9, je compte r\u00e9cup\u00e9rer de la sorte deux fragments certains de l\u2019oral, deux fragments tr\u00e8s probables, un fragment simplement probable, enfin deux sources certaines.\r\n\r\nD\u00e8s les premiers textes, nous affrontons les trois principaux probl\u00e8mes qui nous int\u00e9ressent et cela, on l\u2019a dit, dans une complexit\u00e9 plus grande qu\u2019ailleurs.\r\n\r\n Le probl\u00e8me fondamental des rapports de l\u2019\u00e9crit et de l\u2019oral. Les limites entre l\u2019un et l\u2019autre sont parfois ind\u00e9cises, incertaines. Ce qui est s\u00fbr, c\u2019est que l\u2019oral, quand oral il y a, \u00e9claire consid\u00e9rablement l\u2019\u00e9crit, sorte de commentaire ou de r\u00e9sum\u00e9 anticip\u00e9.\r\n Le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019ind\u00e9pendance mutuelle de Dexippe et de Simplicius et de leur compl\u00e9mentarit\u00e9. La question essentielle, souvent insoluble, est de savoir lequel des deux est le plus fid\u00e8le \u00e0 la formulation de l\u2019aporie orale ou de la source telle que les transmettait Porphyre, voire m\u00eame le seul Jamblique. Le lecteur avis\u00e9 s\u2019apercevra sans peine que Simplicius ne peut vraiment d\u00e9pendre de Dexippe ; il para\u00eet ne jamais l\u2019utiliser dans le corps de son ouvrage ; le nom n\u2019appara\u00eet qu\u2019une seule fois, et cela dans la Pr\u00e9face, p. 2,25, o\u00f9 Simplicius \u00e9num\u00e8re les commentateurs des Cat\u00e9gories, alors qu\u2019ailleurs il n\u2019a pas honte de citer fid\u00e8lement ses sources, notamment Porphyre et Jamblique.\r\n Enfin, le probl\u00e8me des sources de Plotin. Sources de l\u2019oral ou de l\u2019\u00e9crit ou de l\u2019un et de l\u2019autre. Ici m\u00eame, par deux fois, un texte attribu\u00e9 par Simplicius \u00e0 Plotin est attribu\u00e9 aussi, par lui, aux pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseurs de Plotin. Chez Dexippe, ce n\u2019est pas le cas ici et ce sera toujours beaucoup plus rare.\r\n\r\nLes deux seuls points vraiment fermes et solides \u2013 ce ne sera pas toujours le cas \u2013 sont : primo, que les apories sont nettement authentifi\u00e9es, cit\u00e9es sous le nom de Plotin, tant par Dexippe que par Simplicius, lequel souvent, ailleurs, se contente d\u2019\u00e9crire \u00ab quelques-uns \u00bb, l\u00e0 m\u00eame o\u00f9 nous savons pertinemment qu\u2019il s\u2019agit de Plotin. Secundo, qu\u2019une partie au moins des apories, tout en \u00e9tant s\u00fbrement plotiniennes, n\u2019ont aucun parall\u00e8le dans les Enn\u00e9ades et proviennent donc de l\u2019oral. [introduction p. 120-122]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kSddLNtzgHnzFEv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":175,"full_name":"Henry, Paul","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":799,"section_of":189,"pages":"120-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz, 1987
By: Ebert, Theodor, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1987
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Pages 560-583
Categories no categories
Author(s) Ebert, Theodor
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Abhandlung über die Verwendung des Begriffs 'Entelechie' bei Leibnitz: "Daß Leibniz sich, um auf unsere eingangs gestellte Frage zurück­ zukommen, für seinen Begriff der Entelechie nicht auf Aristoteles berufen kann, dürfte damit klar geworden sein. Aus einem Begriff, der bei Aristoteles eine Seinsweise von Gegenständen charakterisie­ ren soll, ist bei Leibniz ein Begriff geworden, der Seiendes selber, Monaden nämlich, charakterisiert. Aber dieses Mißverständnis eines aristotelischen Begriffs durch Leibniz, das wir damit diagnostizieren müssen, ist nicht eine simple Fehlinterpretation des aristotelischen Textes. Dieses Mißverständnis ist begünstigt worden durch eine Ar­ gumentation des Aristoteles, die den Charakter einer dialektischen tour de force hat und die von dem Ausdruck ,Entelecheia‘ einen in gewissem Sinn problematischen Gebrauch macht." (p. 582)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"801","_score":null,"_source":{"id":801,"authors_free":[{"id":1183,"entry_id":801,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":76,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ebert, Theodor","free_first_name":"Theodor","free_last_name":"Ebert","norm_person":{"id":76,"first_name":"Theodor","last_name":"Ebert","full_name":"Ebert, Theodor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115820787","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2096,"entry_id":801,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz","main_title":{"title":"Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz"},"abstract":"Abhandlung \u00fcber die Verwendung des Begriffs 'Entelechie' bei Leibnitz: \"Da\u00df Leibniz sich, um auf unsere eingangs gestellte Frage zur\u00fcck\u00ad\r\nzukommen, f\u00fcr seinen Begriff der Entelechie nicht auf Aristoteles \r\nberufen kann, d\u00fcrfte damit klar geworden sein. Aus einem Begriff, \r\nder bei Aristoteles eine Seinsweise von Gegenst\u00e4nden charakterisie\u00ad\r\nren soll, ist bei Leibniz ein Begriff geworden, der Seiendes selber, \r\nMonaden n\u00e4mlich, charakterisiert. Aber dieses Mi\u00dfverst\u00e4ndnis eines \r\naristotelischen Begriffs durch Leibniz, das wir damit diagnostizieren \r\nm\u00fcssen, ist nicht eine simple Fehlinterpretation des aristotelischen \r\nTextes. Dieses Mi\u00dfverst\u00e4ndnis ist beg\u00fcnstigt worden durch eine Ar\u00ad\r\ngumentation des Aristoteles, die den Charakter einer dialektischen \r\ntour de force hat und die von dem Ausdruck ,Entelecheia\u2018 einen in \r\ngewissem Sinn problematischen Gebrauch macht.\" (p. 582)","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3k7VYtKVSM42I1L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":76,"full_name":"Ebert, Theodor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":801,"section_of":189,"pages":"560-583","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima, 1987
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Pages 90-106
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
These are a few examples of how the Neoplatonist commenta­ tors confronted Alexander on matters where differences could hardly fail to arise. What happens is clear enough. But it would be wrong to think that these principles of interpretation are not applied at other points in the work. Let us take an apparently innocuous issue like the section where Aristotle discusses locomotion under the stimulus of the appetitive faculty (433 b 8sqq.). Alexander, giving a clearly Aristotelian explanation, said that the faculty was moved accidentally. Plutarch differed, and said that the activity of the appetitive faculty is movement: this Simplicius describes as a Pla­ tonic explanation, and prefers it (302,23-30).44 On the other hand, a few pages below Simplicius prefers Alexander to Plutarch on the question whether moving but ungenerated entities have sense-per­ ception (320,33-34): we have already looked at his and Stephanus’ account of this passage.45 As we indicated, Stephanus there quotes Alexander only to disagree with him, and here we have at least one piece of evidence to show that Neoplatonist commentators could take a different view of the same passage. If we had more examples of texts where Alexander’s views of the De anima were discussed by more than one of his successors, we should be able to form a clearer picture of how far the different commentators were prepared to accept them, and thus incidentally of the precise differences between these commentators themselves on the points at issue. [conclusion p. 105-106]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"805","_score":null,"_source":{"id":805,"authors_free":[{"id":1191,"entry_id":805,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"},"abstract":"These are a few examples of how the Neoplatonist commenta\u00ad\r\ntors confronted Alexander on matters where differences could \r\nhardly fail to arise. What happens is clear enough. But it would be \r\nwrong to think that these principles of interpretation are not applied \r\nat other points in the work. Let us take an apparently innocuous \r\nissue like the section where Aristotle discusses locomotion under the \r\nstimulus of the appetitive faculty (433 b 8sqq.). Alexander, giving a \r\nclearly Aristotelian explanation, said that the faculty was moved \r\naccidentally. Plutarch differed, and said that the activity of the \r\nappetitive faculty is movement: this Simplicius describes as a Pla\u00ad\r\ntonic explanation, and prefers it (302,23-30).44 On the other hand, a \r\nfew pages below Simplicius prefers Alexander to Plutarch on the \r\nquestion whether moving but ungenerated entities have sense-per\u00ad\r\nception (320,33-34): we have already looked at his and Stephanus\u2019 account of this passage.45 As we indicated, Stephanus there quotes \r\nAlexander only to disagree with him, and here we have at least one \r\npiece of evidence to show that Neoplatonist commentators could \r\ntake a different view of the same passage. If we had more examples \r\nof texts where Alexander\u2019s views of the De anima were discussed by \r\nmore than one of his successors, we should be able to form a clearer \r\npicture of how far the different commentators were prepared to \r\naccept them, and thus incidentally of the precise differences between \r\nthese commentators themselves on the points at issue. [conclusion p. 105-106]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yyFedFSkP8qo8dn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":805,"section_of":189,"pages":"90-106","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie, 1987
By: Haase, Wolfgang (Ed.)
Title Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1987
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher De Gruyter
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Haase, Wolfgang
Translator(s)
AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER RÖMISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken römischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenwärtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeiträgen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert: I. Von den Anfängen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik II. Principat III. Spätantike Jeder der drei Teile umfaßt sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache Überschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. Künste. ANRW ist ein handbuchartiges Übersichtswerk zu den römischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschluß der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beiträgen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, französischer oder italienischer Sprache. Zum Mitarbeiterstab gehören rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 Ländern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend gehören die Autoren hauptsächlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik. In Vorbereitung sind: Teil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung Teil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"335","_score":null,"_source":{"id":335,"authors_free":[{"id":429,"entry_id":335,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","main_title":{"title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie"},"abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1987","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Études sur Parménide, Tome II: Problèmes d’interprétation, 1987
By: Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Études sur Parménide, Tome II: Problèmes d’interprétation
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1987
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Vrin
Series Bibliothèque d’histoire de la philosophie
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"372","_score":null,"_source":{"id":372,"authors_free":[{"id":1999,"entry_id":372,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u00c9tudes sur Parm\u00e9nide, Tome II: Probl\u00e8mes d\u2019interpr\u00e9tation","main_title":{"title":"\u00c9tudes sur Parm\u00e9nide, Tome II: Probl\u00e8mes d\u2019interpr\u00e9tation"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1987","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ojgpMQbpMPY4GeV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":372,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem, 1987
By: Wildberg, Christian, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science
Pages 197-209
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wildberg, Christian
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
Judging from the number and content of his commentaries, Philoponus was a thinker in the Aristotelian tradition. One of his major achievements lies in the fact that as a commentator he accepted and developed the heritage of his teacher Ammonius. For that reason alone it is remarkable that he composed a treatise which attacked vital topics of Aristotle’s philosophy with little compromise. Although it is true that throughout Antiquity many philosophers ventured to criticise the great Aristotle, one may agree that Philoponus did so, as Cesare Cremonini put it in 1616, ‘more sharply than anyone’ (acerrime omnium).' Where does this attack fit into the context of Philoponus’doctrinal development? No doubt his outspoken critique of Aristotle in the de Aetemitate Mundi contra Aristotelem somehow swayed Philoponus to desert the philosophical and join the theological camp. But the story is probably more complex. The general point of dissent was, as the title indicates, the doctrine of the eternity of the world. Being a Christian, Philoponus perhaps possessed a particular motivation for launching his attack - as a feat of praeparatio evangélica. This fact has been sufficiently recognised and appreciated. Less appreciated and studied, however, has been the philosophical side, i.e. the actual argument and structure of the treatise in question. Since it has not survived the content must be reconstructed from a number of substantial fragments found mainly in the commentaries of Philoponus’ adversary Simplicius. An adequate treatment of the double controversy Simplicius v Philoponus v Aristotle would fill a volume on its own and cannot be the subject of this chapter.2 Instead, I will attempt to revise apparently firmly established views about the treatise, in particular its composition and date. This, it is hoped, may lead to a revised view of that treatise and at the same time encourage a more advanced study of Philoponus’ doctrinal development in general. [introduction p. 197-198]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"430","_score":null,"_source":{"id":430,"authors_free":[{"id":580,"entry_id":430,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":581,"entry_id":430,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem","main_title":{"title":"Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem"},"abstract":"Judging from the number and content of his commentaries, Philoponus was a thinker in the Aristotelian tradition. One of his major achievements lies in \r\nthe fact that as a commentator he accepted and developed the heritage of his teacher Ammonius. For that reason alone it is remarkable that he composed a treatise which attacked vital topics of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy with little compromise. Although it is true that throughout Antiquity many philosophers ventured to criticise the great Aristotle, one may agree that Philoponus did so, as Cesare Cremonini put it in 1616, \u2018more sharply than anyone\u2019 (acerrime omnium).' Where does this attack fit into the context of Philoponus\u2019doctrinal development? No doubt his outspoken critique of Aristotle in the de Aetemitate Mundi contra Aristotelem somehow swayed Philoponus to desert the philosophical and join the theological camp. But the story is probably more complex. The general point of dissent was, as the title indicates, the doctrine of the eternity of the world. Being a Christian, Philoponus perhaps possessed a \r\nparticular motivation for launching his attack - as a feat of praeparatio evang\u00e9lica. This fact has been sufficiently recognised and appreciated. Less appreciated and studied, however, has been the philosophical side, i.e. the actual argument and structure of the treatise in question. Since it has not survived the content must be reconstructed from a number of substantial fragments found mainly in the commentaries of Philoponus\u2019 adversary Simplicius. An adequate treatment of the double controversy Simplicius v Philoponus v Aristotle would fill a volume on its own and cannot be the subject of this chapter.2 Instead, I will attempt to revise apparently firmly established views about the treatise, in particular its composition and date. This, it is hoped, may lead to a revised view of that treatise and at the same time encourage a more advanced study of Philoponus\u2019 doctrinal development in general. [introduction p. 197-198]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dbFxqr9z9aZi48i","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":430,"section_of":1383,"pages":"197-209","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985), 1987
By: Pépin, Jean (Ed.), Saffrey, Henri Dominique (Ed.)
Title Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1987
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Centre national de la recherche scientifique
Series Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Pépin, Jean , Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Translator(s)
Du 5e siècle jusqu'au début du 19e siècle, Proclus fut considéré comme l'héritier par excellence de Platon, celui qui avait su tirer des dialogues un exposé systématique et cohérent de la philosophie platonicienne. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"159","_score":null,"_source":{"id":159,"authors_free":[{"id":2055,"entry_id":159,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":227,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":{"id":227,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"P\u00e9pin","full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119165147","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2056,"entry_id":159,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)","main_title":{"title":"Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)"},"abstract":"Du 5e si\u00e8cle jusqu'au d\u00e9but du 19e si\u00e8cle, Proclus fut consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme l'h\u00e9ritier par excellence de Platon, celui qui avait su tirer des dialogues un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique et coh\u00e9rent de la philosophie platonicienne. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QluMshmjYrV5JtV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":227,"full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":159,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre national de la recherche scientifique","series":"Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985, 1987
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1987
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus
Volume 15
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
Depuis une quinzaine d'années, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Amérique et en France à un renouveau des études sur Simplicius. Différents chercheurs, partis de problématiques et de préoccupations différentes, se sont rencontrés dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'était donc pour faciliter une étude coordonnée et systématique à la fois du texte et de la pensée de Simplicius que la Recherche Coopérative Programmée 739 "Recherches sur les œuvres et la pensée de Simplicius" fut fondée en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se déroulent en étroite collaboration avec l'équipe anglo-américaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitulée "Ancient Commentators on Aristotle", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universität de Berlin-Ouest dirigé par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger. Pour permettre aux différents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent à l'étranger, ainsi qu'à d'autres savants intéressés par les études sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de résoudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant à l'organisation du travail, d'échanger entre eux les tout derniers résultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des problèmes difficiles, j'ai organisé, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu à Paris, à la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a été entièrement financé par la Fondation Hugot du Collège de France, à laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi à remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veillé à leur procurer un merveilleux confort. Le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionné la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la série prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'édition De Gruyter. [Préface]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"171","_score":null,"_source":{"id":171,"authors_free":[{"id":1831,"entry_id":171,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985"},"abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","btype":4,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben, 1987
By: Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.), H. J. Lulofs (Ed.), Jutta Kollesch (Ed.), Vivian Nutton (Ed.)
Title Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Type Edited Book
Language German
Date 1987
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet
Volume 2
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen , H. J. Lulofs , Jutta Kollesch , Vivian Nutton
Translator(s)
Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beiträge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefaßt, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a ß diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Glücksfall mag gelten, daß einige Beiträge sich in idealer Weise ergänzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik Λ 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios über Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen können. Dieses Bemühen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa für De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, für die Kategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstveröffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. Von den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch über Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier veröffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry später einmal integriert werden; daraus erklären sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt über die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enthält im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Ergänzungen zu seiner grundlegenden „Bibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600". [Vorwort p. V-VI]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"189","_score":null,"_source":{"id":189,"authors_free":[{"id":245,"entry_id":189,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2768,"entry_id":189,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"H. J. Lulofs","free_first_name":"H. J.","free_last_name":"Lulofs","norm_person":null},{"id":2769,"entry_id":189,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jutta Kollesch","free_first_name":"Jutta","free_last_name":"Kollesch","norm_person":null},{"id":2770,"entry_id":189,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vivian Nutton","free_first_name":"Vivian","free_last_name":"Nutton","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","main_title":{"title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben"},"abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","btype":4,"date":"1987","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

The Physical World of Late Antiquity, 1987
By: Sambursky, Samuel
Title The Physical World of Late Antiquity
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1987
Publication Place Princeton
Publisher Princeton University Press
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sambursky, Samuel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Sambursky describes the development of scientific conceptions and theories in the centuries following Aristotle until the close of antiquity in the sixth century A. D. Originally published in 1987. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. [a.a.]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"7","_score":null,"_source":{"id":7,"authors_free":[{"id":7,"entry_id":7,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":308,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sambursky, Samuel","free_first_name":"Samuel","free_last_name":"Sambursky","norm_person":{"id":308,"first_name":"\u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","last_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee","full_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120109794","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Physical World of Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"The Physical World of Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"Sambursky describes the development of scientific conceptions and theories in the centuries following Aristotle until the close of antiquity in the sixth century A. D. Originally published in 1987. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. [a.a.]","btype":1,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ucITChRtwjW8n0e","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":308,"full_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":7,"pubplace":"Princeton","publisher":"Princeton University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Philoponus: Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World, 1987
By: Philoponos, Johannes,
Title Philoponus: Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1987
Publication Place London
Publisher Duckworth
Series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories no categories
Author(s) Philoponos, Johannes
Editor(s)
Translator(s) Wildberg, Christian(Wildberg, Christian) .
Philoponus' treatise Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World, an attack on Aristotle's astronomy and theology is concerned mainly with the eternity and divinity of the fifth element, or 'quintessence', of which Aristotle took the stars to be composed. Pagans and Christians were divided on whether the world had a beginning, and on whether a belief that the heavens were divine was a mark of religion. Philoponus claimed on behalf of Christianity that the universe was not eternal. His most spectacular arguments, where wrung paradox out of the pagan belief in an infinite past, have been wrongly credited by historians of science to a period 700 years later. The treatise was to influence Islamic, Jewish, Byzantine and Latin thought, though the fifth element was defended against Philoponus even beyond the time of Copernicus. The influence of the treatise was not easy to trace before the fragments were assembled. Dr. Wildberg has brought them together for the first time and provided a summary which makes coherent sense of the whole. He has also studied a Syriac fragment, which reveals that the treatise originally contained an explicitly theological section on the Christian expectation of a new heaven and a new earth. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"42","_score":null,"_source":{"id":42,"authors_free":[{"id":49,"entry_id":42,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":439,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Philoponos, Johannes","free_first_name":"Johannes","free_last_name":"Philoponos","norm_person":{"id":439,"first_name":"Johannes","last_name":"Philoponos","full_name":"Philoponos, Johannes ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2296,"entry_id":42,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus: Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus: Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World"},"abstract":"Philoponus' treatise Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World, an attack on Aristotle's astronomy and theology is concerned mainly with the eternity and divinity of the fifth element, or 'quintessence', of which Aristotle took the stars to be composed. Pagans and Christians were divided on whether the world had a beginning, and on whether a belief that the heavens were divine was a mark of religion. Philoponus claimed on behalf of Christianity that the universe was not eternal. His most spectacular arguments, where wrung paradox out of the pagan belief in an infinite past, have been wrongly credited by historians of science to a period 700 years later. The treatise was to influence Islamic, Jewish, Byzantine and Latin thought, though the fifth element was defended against Philoponus even beyond the time of Copernicus. The influence of the treatise was not easy to trace before the fragments were assembled. Dr. Wildberg has brought them together for the first time and provided a summary which makes coherent sense of the whole. He has also studied a Syriac fragment, which reveals that the treatise originally contained an explicitly theological section on the Christian expectation of a new heaven and a new earth. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8Iylo91nPxiKHhJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":439,"full_name":"Philoponos, Johannes ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":42,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Simplicius et l'école' éléate, 1987
By: Cordero, Néstor-Luis, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Simplicius et l'école' éléate
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 166-182
Categories no categories
Author(s) Cordero, Néstor-Luis
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
This text discusses the concept of the Eleatic school of philosophy, which is attributed to the philosophers Parmenides and Xenophanes. The author argues that the school may not have actually existed as a unified movement, but rather was an invention to help classify the philosophical systems of ancient Greece. The author discusses the historical development of the Eleatic school from Plato to Simplicius and analyzes the presentation of the four Eleatic philosophers by Simplicius. The author concludes that Simplicius, like Plato and Aristotle before him, considers Parmenides to be the central figure of the Eleatic school. The text also examines the reasons why the Eleatic school has been characterized as monistic, and argues that this may be due to a misinterpretation of the works of Parmenides and Melissus. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1278","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1278,"authors_free":[{"id":1867,"entry_id":1278,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":54,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_last_name":"Cordero","norm_person":{"id":54,"first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","last_name":"Cordero","full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055808973","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2346,"entry_id":1278,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole' \u00e9l\u00e9ate","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole' \u00e9l\u00e9ate"},"abstract":"This text discusses the concept of the Eleatic school of philosophy, which is attributed to the philosophers Parmenides and Xenophanes. The author argues that the school may not have actually existed as a unified movement, but rather was an invention to help classify the philosophical systems of ancient Greece. The author discusses the historical development of the Eleatic school from Plato to Simplicius and analyzes the presentation of the four Eleatic philosophers by Simplicius. The author concludes that Simplicius, like Plato and Aristotle before him, considers Parmenides to be the central figure of the Eleatic school. The text also examines the reasons why the Eleatic school has been characterized as monistic, and argues that this may be due to a misinterpretation of the works of Parmenides and Melissus. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TmkANfK25JZ4wfH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":54,"full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1278,"section_of":171,"pages":"166-182","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Les calendriers en usage à Harran d’après les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote, 1987
By: Tardieu, Michel, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Les calendriers en usage à Harran d’après les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 40-57
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tardieu, Michel
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
L’ordre des saisons adopté par Simplicius pour énumérer et classer les calendriers groupe d’abord deux calendriers luni-solaires (attique et asiate), puis deux calendriers solaires (romain et arabe). Comme dans l’Athènes de Proclus finissant, le premier de ces calendriers n’était en usage qu’à l’Académie. Mais, à la différence de la situation contemporaine de Marinus écrivant la biographie de son maître, la symbolique des lunaisons du calendrier attique, avec un cycle analogue de fêtes et de rites, était réalité hors de l’enceinte de l’Académie, dans la société harrânienne. Le calendrier luni-solaire attique en usage dans l’École platonicienne de Harrân ne se différenciait du calendrier luni-solaire local hérité de la colonisation macédonienne que par son début d’année et les noms de ses mois. Le passage de l’un à l’autre n’offrait aucune difficulté. Plus besoin, comme le faisait Marinus, de julianiser artificiellement le nombre du jour du mois attique pour transcrire une date du calendrier de la ville. L’hémérologe de Florence mettant la nouvelle année du calendrier asiate le 23 septembre et Jean Lydus faisant partir le calendrier attique du 23 juin, il y avait totale correspondance du point de vue du jour du mois entre le calendrier académique dont Lydus donne les noms attiques et le calendrier civil et religieux de la ville, dont l’Hémerologion et al-Hàsimî transmettent respectivement les noms macédoniens et araméens. L’exemple des débuts d’année, développé par Simplicius, offre un déroulement du temps harrânien à quatre entrées festives, comme l’a bien noté al-Bîrünî. L’année académique des Platoniciens, réglée sur le solstice d’été (calendrier attique), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ Hekatombaiôn, qui correspondait respectivement au 1ᵉʳ Lôos (Éphèse), au 23 juin (Romains), au 4 Panemos (Arabes). L’année civile et religieuse de la ville, réglée sur l’équinoxe d’automne (calendrier asiate), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ Dios/Tišrîn al-awwal, qui correspondait au 23 septembre (Romains), au 6 Gorpiaios (Arabes), au 1ᵉʳ Puanepsiôn (Athéniens). L’année civile et religieuse de l’Empire, réglée sur le solstice d’hiver (calendrier romain), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ janvier/Kânûn II, qui correspondait au 16 Audunaios (Arabes), au 8 Gamêliôn (Athéniens), au 8 Peritios (Éphèse). L’année coutumière de la région, réglée sur l’équinoxe vernal (calendrier arabe), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ Xanthikos/Nîsân, qui correspondait à la veille du 30 Elaphêboliôn (Athéniens), au 22 mars (Romains), et à la veille du 30 Xanthikos (Éphèse). La parenthèse sur les débuts d’année, ouverte par Simplicius à propos de l’exemple du début du mois choisi par Aristote pour illustrer le concept de consécution temporelle, se referme sur trois acquis essentiels. Elle constitue le plus ancien témoignage connu sur les calendriers en usage chez les Greco-araméens de Harrân. Elle permet d’identifier, par leur origine historique et leur appartenance nationale, les calendriers fournis par al-Sarahsî, al-Hàsimî et Wahb. Elle confirme que c’est bien là, dans cette «ville bénie, parce que jamais souillée par l’erreur de Nazareth», que trouvèrent refuge les derniers Platoniciens après 533. Dans les calendriers de Wahb et d’al-Hâsimî, se côtoient pêle-mêle les noms de divinités babyloniennes, égyptiennes, grecques, anatoliennes, syriennes et arabes. Un tel syncrétisme ne pouvait que faire bon ménage avec la religion de l’Académie. Selon l’objectif de l’École d’Athènes, en effet, le philosophe ne devait se contenter d’être le thérapeute d’une seule ville, ou celui des coutumes de quelques peuples. Il lui fallait aussi être «l’hiérophante du monde entier». En s’installant à Harrân à leur retour d’Iran, les compagnons de Damascius avaient choisi l’endroit idéal pour réaliser un tel programme. [conclusion p. 55-57]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"475","_score":null,"_source":{"id":475,"authors_free":[{"id":640,"entry_id":475,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":331,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tardieu, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Tardieu","norm_person":{"id":331,"first_name":"Michel","last_name":"Tardieu","full_name":"Tardieu, Michel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140490701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":641,"entry_id":475,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les calendriers en usage \u00e0 Harran d\u2019apr\u00e8s les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Les calendriers en usage \u00e0 Harran d\u2019apr\u00e8s les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"L\u2019ordre des saisons adopt\u00e9 par Simplicius pour \u00e9num\u00e9rer et classer les calendriers groupe d\u2019abord deux calendriers luni-solaires (attique et asiate), puis deux calendriers solaires (romain et arabe). Comme dans l\u2019Ath\u00e8nes de Proclus finissant, le premier de ces calendriers n\u2019\u00e9tait en usage qu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie. Mais, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence de la situation contemporaine de Marinus \u00e9crivant la biographie de son ma\u00eetre, la symbolique des lunaisons du calendrier attique, avec un cycle analogue de f\u00eates et de rites, \u00e9tait r\u00e9alit\u00e9 hors de l\u2019enceinte de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie, dans la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 harr\u00e2nienne.\r\n\r\nLe calendrier luni-solaire attique en usage dans l\u2019\u00c9cole platonicienne de Harr\u00e2n ne se diff\u00e9renciait du calendrier luni-solaire local h\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la colonisation mac\u00e9donienne que par son d\u00e9but d\u2019ann\u00e9e et les noms de ses mois. Le passage de l\u2019un \u00e0 l\u2019autre n\u2019offrait aucune difficult\u00e9. Plus besoin, comme le faisait Marinus, de julianiser artificiellement le nombre du jour du mois attique pour transcrire une date du calendrier de la ville.\r\n\r\nL\u2019h\u00e9m\u00e9rologe de Florence mettant la nouvelle ann\u00e9e du calendrier asiate le 23 septembre et Jean Lydus faisant partir le calendrier attique du 23 juin, il y avait totale correspondance du point de vue du jour du mois entre le calendrier acad\u00e9mique dont Lydus donne les noms attiques et le calendrier civil et religieux de la ville, dont l\u2019H\u00e9merologion et al-H\u00e0sim\u00ee transmettent respectivement les noms mac\u00e9doniens et aram\u00e9ens.\r\n\r\nL\u2019exemple des d\u00e9buts d\u2019ann\u00e9e, d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 par Simplicius, offre un d\u00e9roulement du temps harr\u00e2nien \u00e0 quatre entr\u00e9es festives, comme l\u2019a bien not\u00e9 al-B\u00eer\u00fcn\u00ee. L\u2019ann\u00e9e acad\u00e9mique des Platoniciens, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur le solstice d\u2019\u00e9t\u00e9 (calendrier attique), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Hekatombai\u00f4n, qui correspondait respectivement au 1\u1d49\u02b3 L\u00f4os (\u00c9ph\u00e8se), au 23 juin (Romains), au 4 Panemos (Arabes).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ann\u00e9e civile et religieuse de la ville, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur l\u2019\u00e9quinoxe d\u2019automne (calendrier asiate), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Dios\/Ti\u0161r\u00een al-awwal, qui correspondait au 23 septembre (Romains), au 6 Gorpiaios (Arabes), au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Puanepsi\u00f4n (Ath\u00e9niens).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ann\u00e9e civile et religieuse de l\u2019Empire, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur le solstice d\u2019hiver (calendrier romain), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 janvier\/K\u00e2n\u00fbn II, qui correspondait au 16 Audunaios (Arabes), au 8 Gam\u00eali\u00f4n (Ath\u00e9niens), au 8 Peritios (\u00c9ph\u00e8se).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ann\u00e9e coutumi\u00e8re de la r\u00e9gion, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur l\u2019\u00e9quinoxe vernal (calendrier arabe), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Xanthikos\/N\u00ees\u00e2n, qui correspondait \u00e0 la veille du 30 Elaph\u00eaboli\u00f4n (Ath\u00e9niens), au 22 mars (Romains), et \u00e0 la veille du 30 Xanthikos (\u00c9ph\u00e8se).\r\n\r\nLa parenth\u00e8se sur les d\u00e9buts d\u2019ann\u00e9e, ouverte par Simplicius \u00e0 propos de l\u2019exemple du d\u00e9but du mois choisi par Aristote pour illustrer le concept de cons\u00e9cution temporelle, se referme sur trois acquis essentiels.\r\n\r\nElle constitue le plus ancien t\u00e9moignage connu sur les calendriers en usage chez les Greco-aram\u00e9ens de Harr\u00e2n. Elle permet d\u2019identifier, par leur origine historique et leur appartenance nationale, les calendriers fournis par al-Sarahs\u00ee, al-H\u00e0sim\u00ee et Wahb.\r\n\r\nElle confirme que c\u2019est bien l\u00e0, dans cette \u00abville b\u00e9nie, parce que jamais souill\u00e9e par l\u2019erreur de Nazareth\u00bb, que trouv\u00e8rent refuge les derniers Platoniciens apr\u00e8s 533.\r\n\r\nDans les calendriers de Wahb et d\u2019al-H\u00e2sim\u00ee, se c\u00f4toient p\u00eale-m\u00eale les noms de divinit\u00e9s babyloniennes, \u00e9gyptiennes, grecques, anatoliennes, syriennes et arabes. Un tel syncr\u00e9tisme ne pouvait que faire bon m\u00e9nage avec la religion de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie.\r\n\r\nSelon l\u2019objectif de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, en effet, le philosophe ne devait se contenter d\u2019\u00eatre le th\u00e9rapeute d\u2019une seule ville, ou celui des coutumes de quelques peuples. Il lui fallait aussi \u00eatre \u00abl\u2019hi\u00e9rophante du monde entier\u00bb.\r\n\r\nEn s\u2019installant \u00e0 Harr\u00e2n \u00e0 leur retour d\u2019Iran, les compagnons de Damascius avaient choisi l\u2019endroit id\u00e9al pour r\u00e9aliser un tel programme. [conclusion p. 55-57]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TgVuqJv1CIhi085","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":331,"full_name":"Tardieu, Michel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":475,"section_of":171,"pages":"40-57","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension, 1987
By: Sorabji, Richard, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 148-165
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
What conclusions can now be drawn? It is time to say that I do not think Aristotle reached the point of consciously thinking that extension would play the role of prime matter. It took the Neoplatonist Simplicius to interpret him that way, motivated by reasons of his own. The diffuseness of extension will have seemed important to Simplicius because it puts prime matter where it should be, at the opposite extreme from the unity of the One. He knew that Plato had been taken as identifying prime matter with space or with other kinds of extension, and, although he disagreed, he thought he found the justification for such an interpretation of Aristotle at least in Phys. 4,2, if not in the Metaphysics as well. But even if Simplicius' interpretation does not represent Aristotle's conscious thought, it opens new vistas. For one thing, I believe that extension would fit with Aristotle's conception of prime matter, and fit better than anything else that has been proposed. Furthermore, in considering how it would fit, we have been forced to consider a network of interlocking parts of Aristotle's philosophy. Some of the parts would require modification if extension were to be openly acknowledged as playing the role of prime matter, but the resulting modifications would yield a coherent view. Finally, views of the same general sort, which treat body as some kind of extension endowed with properties, have recurred through the ages, for example in Descartes, in Newton, and in twentieth-century physics. [conclusion p. 162-163]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"487","_score":null,"_source":{"id":487,"authors_free":[{"id":665,"entry_id":487,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":666,"entry_id":487,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension"},"abstract":"What conclusions can now be drawn? It is time to say that I do not think Aristotle reached the point of consciously thinking that extension would play the role of prime matter. It took the Neoplatonist Simplicius to interpret him that way, motivated by reasons of his own.\r\n\r\nThe diffuseness of extension will have seemed important to Simplicius because it puts prime matter where it should be, at the opposite extreme from the unity of the One. He knew that Plato had been taken as identifying prime matter with space or with other kinds of extension, and, although he disagreed, he thought he found the justification for such an interpretation of Aristotle at least in Phys. 4,2, if not in the Metaphysics as well.\r\n\r\nBut even if Simplicius' interpretation does not represent Aristotle's conscious thought, it opens new vistas. For one thing, I believe that extension would fit with Aristotle's conception of prime matter, and fit better than anything else that has been proposed. Furthermore, in considering how it would fit, we have been forced to consider a network of interlocking parts of Aristotle's philosophy.\r\n\r\nSome of the parts would require modification if extension were to be openly acknowledged as playing the role of prime matter, but the resulting modifications would yield a coherent view. Finally, views of the same general sort, which treat body as some kind of extension endowed with properties, have recurred through the ages, for example in Descartes, in Newton, and in twentieth-century physics. [conclusion p. 162-163]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h6HONd1UnE1D8Vw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":487,"section_of":171,"pages":"148-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

John Philoponus, 1987
By: Sorabji, Richard, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title John Philoponus
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science
Pages 1-40
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
This chapter delves into the life and intellectual contributions of John Philoponus, a pivotal figure bridging Neoplatonism and Christianity. It explores his relationship with Ammonius and examines how his Christian faith influenced his philosophical and scientific endeavors. The text covers Philoponus' critique of the Aristotelian worldview, focusing on key topics such as the creation of the universe, the impetus theory of dynamics, and the concept of velocity in a vacuum. It also addresses his innovative ideas about vacuum and space, his challenges to Aristotle's notions of natural place, and his interpretation of matter as extension. Philoponus is recognized for disrupting Aristotle's categorical framework, rejecting the fifth element, and presenting novel theories about the directionality of light. The chapter reflects on his attacks on Aristotle in retrospect, highlighting the interplay between his scientific theories and Christian doctrines, including Christ, the Trinity, resurrection, and the soul. Additionally, the chapter examines his influence on later thought, tracing his intellectual antecedents and the chronology of his writings. [Derived from the entire text]

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

Infinity and the Creation, 1987
By: Sorabji, Richard, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Infinity and the Creation
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science
Pages 164-178
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
The arguments of Philoponus on which I want to focus concern the Christian view that the universe had a beginning. But here already I must draw a distinction. For in talking of the universe beginning, I am not talking merely of the present orderly arrangement of the earth, sun, moon, and stars. Many pagans would have accepted that the present arrangement of matter had a beginning. What, with very few exceptions, they all thought absurd was that matter itself should have had a beginning. Indeed, Jews and Christians themselves were embarrassed about this doctrine and were by no means unanimous in accepting it. It has been suggested that the oldest references to creation in the Old Testament come in Job, and that there God is envisaged as imposing order on pre-existing matter, not as creating matter itself. It has further been doubted whether there is any clear statement in the Bible of creation out of nothing. The opinion of Philo the Jew, in the first century A.D., is a matter of controversy, but I believe that he takes different sides in different works. A little later, Hermogenes and others offered a surprising reason for denying matter a beginning. They pointed to the use of the word "was" in the opening of Genesis, where it is said that the earth was without form and void, and they took the use of the past tense to show that earth, or matter, was already in existence when the Creator began work. It is often held, although I am not inclined to agree myself, that Boethius endorsed the Neoplatonist view of a beginningless universe at the end of his Consolation of Philosophy. What I would acknowledge is that other Christians in these centuries, such as Synesius and Elias, did deny the universe a beginning or end under the influence of Platonism. If we skip to the thirteenth century, we find Thomas Aquinas and his teacher Albert the Great saying that it cannot be established by philosophy one way or the other whether the universe had a beginning. It is only Scripture which reveals that it did. Two slightly younger contemporaries in Paris went a step further—indeed, a step too far. Boethius of Dacia (the Dane, not the sixth-century Roman) and Siger of Brabant maintained that philosophical argument showed the universe to be beginningless, but that nonetheless, reason must bow to revelation. They had to flee Paris in the condemnation of 1277, and there is a tradition that Siger was murdered. [introduction p. 165-167]

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

Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen Überlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios, 1987
By: Harlfinger, Dieter, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen Überlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 267-286
Categories no categories
Author(s) Harlfinger, Dieter
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
In der Geschichte der Simplikios-Philologie spielen Frauen eine besondere Rolle. Aus der Feder der byzantinischen Prinzessin Theodora Palaiologina Rhaulaina (ca. 1240—1300)1 stammt eine der —wie sich zeigen wird — textkritisch relevantesten Handschriften des für die Erforschung der Vorsokratik, der Peripatetik wie auch des Neuplatonismus bekanntermaßen unschätzbaren Kommentars zur aristotelischen Physik des Simplikios. Der zwischen 1261 und 1282 datierende2 Codex Mosquensis Muz. 3649 mit den Büchern I—IV und dem Beginn von Buch V (desinit mutile3 803, 8 Diels4) ist die of- fensichtlich sehr gewissenhafte5 Abschrift jener Frau, die keinesfalls nur als Schreiberin hervorgetreten ist, sondern insbesondere auch als selbständige hagiographische Schriftstellerin, als tätige Patronin eines Scriptoriums und Buchilluminationsateliers, als Besitzerin einer wohl umfangreichen Bibliothek und nicht zuletzt als bedeutendes Mitglied eines Gelehrtenkreises, dem unter anderen auch Maximos Planudes, Gregorios von Zypern und Manuel Holobolos angehörten. Als sich auf Initiative und unter Leitung von Ilsetraut H a d o t die führenden Simplikios-Forscher unserer T a g e im Herbst 1985 in Paris zu ihrem ersten Fachkolloquium versammelten, durfte der Verfasser dieser Zeilen — obwohl kein Simplikianer — unter ihnen referieren, über ebenjenen Mosquensis von der H a n d der Rhaulaina. Ilsetraut H a d o t wußte, daß ich auf einer Bibliotheksreise des Jahres 1966 die Handschrift eingesehen hatte und sie aufgrund der Bewertung des „locus fenestratus" am Ende von Buch III p. 518 als neuen unabhängigen Textträger erkannt zu haben glaubte6. D a s Referat konnte zwar von der Klassifizierung des in der T a t unabhängigen Mosquensis ausgehen, mußte sich aber zur Klärung der stemmatischen Aporien, die beim Studium der Dielsschen Praefatio und des apparatus criticus zutage traten, auf die Situation der Handschrift Ε (Vorlagenwechsel sowie Eb und Eä als dislozierte Partien in Ε bzw. der Vorlage von E) und der Handschrift D (Duktusänderung und Vorlagenwechsel) konzentrieren und konnte darüber hinaus auf die interessante Rolle einer weiteren Moskauer Handschrift (Len) aufmerksam machen und Fingerzeige zu dem einen oder anderen jüngeren Manuskript geben. — Inzwischen habe ich noch einmal über den Codex F nachgedacht und nunmehr fast alle Simplikios-Handschriften im Film — soweit im Berliner Aristoteles-Archiv vorhanden7 — rasch eingese hen8. Im folgenden wage ich — der Veranstalterin des Kolloquiums und Editorin der Akten habe ich dabei für Ermunterung und Geduld zu danken —, meine ersten Eindrücke zu publizieren. Es sind lediglich vorläufige Ergebnisse, die durch systematische Untersuchungen verifiziert werden müßten; hierin ein Plädoyer für eine kodikologische Stemmatik. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"515","_score":null,"_source":{"id":515,"authors_free":[{"id":714,"entry_id":515,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":5,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Harlfinger, Dieter","free_first_name":"Dieter","free_last_name":"Harlfinger","norm_person":{"id":5,"first_name":"Dieter","last_name":"Harlfinger","full_name":"Harlfinger, Dieter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107988674","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":715,"entry_id":515,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen \u00dcberlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen \u00dcberlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios"},"abstract":"In der Geschichte der Simplikios-Philologie spielen Frauen eine besondere Rolle. Aus der Feder der byzantinischen Prinzessin Theodora Palaiologina Rhaulaina (ca. 1240\u20141300)1 stammt eine der \u2014wie sich zeigen wird \u2014 textkritisch relevantesten Handschriften des f\u00fcr die Erforschung der Vorsokratik, der Peripatetik wie auch des Neuplatonismus bekannterma\u00dfen unsch\u00e4tzbaren Kommentars zur aristotelischen Physik des Simplikios. Der zwischen 1261 und 1282 datierende2 Codex Mosquensis Muz. 3649 mit den B\u00fcchern I\u2014IV und dem Beginn von Buch V (desinit mutile3 803, 8 Diels4) ist die of- fensichtlich sehr gewissenhafte5 Abschrift jener Frau, die keinesfalls nur als Schreiberin hervorgetreten ist, sondern insbesondere auch als selbst\u00e4ndige hagiographische Schriftstellerin, als t\u00e4tige Patronin eines Scriptoriums und Buchilluminationsateliers, als Besitzerin einer wohl umfangreichen Bibliothek und nicht zuletzt als bedeutendes Mitglied eines Gelehrtenkreises, dem unter anderen auch Maximos Planudes, Gregorios von Zypern und Manuel Holobolos angeh\u00f6rten. Als sich auf Initiative und unter Leitung von Ilsetraut H a d o t die f\u00fchrenden Simplikios-Forscher unserer T a g e im Herbst 1985 in Paris zu ihrem ersten Fachkolloquium versammelten, durfte der Verfasser dieser Zeilen \u2014 obwohl kein Simplikianer \u2014 unter ihnen referieren, \u00fcber ebenjenen Mosquensis von der H a n d der Rhaulaina. Ilsetraut H a d o t wu\u00dfte, da\u00df ich auf einer Bibliotheksreise des Jahres 1966 die Handschrift eingesehen hatte und sie aufgrund der Bewertung des \u201elocus fenestratus\" am Ende von Buch III p. 518 als neuen unabh\u00e4ngigen Texttr\u00e4ger erkannt zu haben glaubte6. D a s Referat konnte zwar von der Klassifizierung des in der T a t unabh\u00e4ngigen Mosquensis ausgehen, mu\u00dfte sich aber zur Kl\u00e4rung der stemmatischen Aporien, die beim Studium der Dielsschen Praefatio und des apparatus criticus zutage traten, auf die Situation der Handschrift \u0395 (Vorlagenwechsel sowie Eb und E\u00e4 als dislozierte Partien in \u0395 bzw. der Vorlage von E) und der Handschrift D (Duktus\u00e4nderung und Vorlagenwechsel) konzentrieren und konnte dar\u00fcber hinaus auf die interessante Rolle einer weiteren Moskauer Handschrift (Len) aufmerksam machen und Fingerzeige zu dem einen oder anderen j\u00fcngeren Manuskript geben. \u2014 Inzwischen habe ich noch einmal \u00fcber den Codex F nachgedacht und nunmehr fast alle Simplikios-Handschriften im Film \u2014 soweit im Berliner Aristoteles-Archiv vorhanden7 \u2014 rasch eingese hen8. Im folgenden wage ich \u2014 der Veranstalterin des Kolloquiums und Editorin der Akten habe ich dabei f\u00fcr Ermunterung und Geduld zu danken \u2014, meine ersten Eindr\u00fccke zu publizieren. Es sind lediglich vorl\u00e4ufige Ergebnisse, die durch systematische Untersuchungen verifiziert werden m\u00fc\u00dften; hierin ein Pl\u00e4doyer f\u00fcr eine kodikologische Stemmatik. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lJYydaL12PDErlM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":5,"full_name":"Harlfinger, Dieter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":515,"section_of":171,"pages":"267-286","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'Épictète du XVe au XVII siècles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth, 1987
By: Hadot, Pierre, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'Épictète du XVe au XVII siècles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 326-367
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Pierre
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
The survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' "Handbook" from the 15th to the 17th centuries can be observed from two perspectives. Firstly, there is a focus on the preservation and dissemination of the text itself through printing and translation. However, this study concentrates on the second aspect, which concerns the philosophical content of the commentary. The examination of its philosophical content has aided in understanding Epictetus' "Handbook," resolving certain philosophical problems, and demonstrating the convergence between Platonism and Christianity.The philosophical importance of Simplicius' commentary is exemplified by the work of various scholars, such as Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, and Cudworth. They draw on Simplicius' ideas to address and resolve philosophical questions. For instance, Cudworth uses Simplicius' assertion that the principle of movement must move itself and be without parts or extension to argue for the existence of a spiritual substance. Cudworth further highlights how Simplicius perfectly expresses the Platonic idea of the soul's self-motion, where it moves not according to bodily or local movements but according to the movements of the soul, such as examination, volition, thought, and opinion. Overall, the survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' "Handbook" throughout this period has not only contributed to a better understanding of the text itself but also enriched philosophical discussions and fostered connections between Platonism and Christianity. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"519","_score":null,"_source":{"id":519,"authors_free":[{"id":724,"entry_id":519,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":725,"entry_id":519,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te du XVe au XVII si\u00e8cles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth","main_title":{"title":"La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te du XVe au XVII si\u00e8cles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth"},"abstract":"The survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' \"Handbook\" from the 15th to the 17th centuries can be observed from two perspectives. Firstly, there is a focus on the preservation and dissemination of the text itself through printing and translation. However, this study concentrates on the second aspect, which concerns the philosophical content of the commentary. The examination of its philosophical content has aided in understanding Epictetus' \"Handbook,\" resolving certain philosophical problems, and demonstrating the convergence between Platonism and Christianity.The philosophical importance of Simplicius' commentary is exemplified by the work of various scholars, such as Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, and Cudworth. They draw on Simplicius' ideas to address and resolve philosophical questions. For instance, Cudworth uses Simplicius' assertion that the principle of movement must move itself and be without parts or extension to argue for the existence of a spiritual substance. Cudworth further highlights how Simplicius perfectly expresses the Platonic idea of the soul's self-motion, where it moves not according to bodily or local movements but according to the movements of the soul, such as examination, volition, thought, and opinion. Overall, the survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' \"Handbook\" throughout this period has not only contributed to a better understanding of the text itself but also enriched philosophical discussions and fostered connections between Platonism and Christianity. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YBJwmhRAfIkqrD5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":519,"section_of":171,"pages":"326-367","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

La vie et l’œuvre de Simplicius d’après des sources grecques et arabes, 1987
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title La vie et l’œuvre de Simplicius d’après des sources grecques et arabes
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 3-39
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
Voici donc les conclusions auxquelles on peut aboutir au sujet des œuvres de Simplicius. Nous sont conservés : les commentaires sur le Manuel d’Epictète, sur le De caelo, sur la Physique, sur les Catégories, probablement sur le De anima d’Aristote. Sont perdus, mais attestés de façon plus ou moins sûre : un commentaire sur le premier livre des Éléments d’Euclide, un commentaire sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote, un commentaire sur l’ouvrage de Jamblique consacré à la secte des Pythagoriciens, une Épitomé de la Physique de Théophraste (si le commentaire sur le De anima, où se trouve un renvoi à cette œuvre, est authentique), et peut-être un commentaire sur la Techné d’Hermogène. [conclusion p. 39]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"522","_score":null,"_source":{"id":522,"authors_free":[{"id":728,"entry_id":522,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":729,"entry_id":522,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La vie et l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius d\u2019apr\u00e8s des sources grecques et arabes","main_title":{"title":"La vie et l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius d\u2019apr\u00e8s des sources grecques et arabes"},"abstract":"Voici donc les conclusions auxquelles on peut aboutir au sujet des \u0153uvres de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nNous sont conserv\u00e9s : les commentaires sur le Manuel d\u2019Epict\u00e8te, sur le De caelo, sur la Physique, sur les Cat\u00e9gories, probablement sur le De anima d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nSont perdus, mais attest\u00e9s de fa\u00e7on plus ou moins s\u00fbre : un commentaire sur le premier livre des \u00c9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Euclide, un commentaire sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote, un commentaire sur l\u2019ouvrage de Jamblique consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la secte des Pythagoriciens, une \u00c9pitom\u00e9 de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste (si le commentaire sur le De anima, o\u00f9 se trouve un renvoi \u00e0 cette \u0153uvre, est authentique), et peut-\u00eatre un commentaire sur la Techn\u00e9 d\u2019Hermog\u00e8ne. [conclusion p. 39]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DUSQYbD2Vn7RuIp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":522,"section_of":171,"pages":"3-39","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Parménide d'Élée chez les Néoplatoniciens, 1987
By: Guérard, Christian, Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Parménide d'Élée chez les Néoplatoniciens
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Études sur Parménide, Tome II: Problèmes d’interprétation
Pages 294-313
Categories no categories
Author(s) Guérard, Christian
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)
«Le néoplatonisme, écrit J. Trouillard, succède au ‘moyen platonisme’ le jour où les platoniciens se mettent à chercher dans le Parménide le secret de la philosophie de Platon»¹. Effectivement, en paraphrasant Proclus, on peut même dire que la lecture néoplatonicienne du dialogue, et avant tout de la première hypothèse, est le Néoplatonisme lui-même². Sans revenir davantage sur le rôle considérable du Parménide chez Plotin³, bornons-nous à rappeler qu’il a été commenté de façon systématique par Porphyre⁴, puis, comme en témoigne Proclus⁵, par Amélius, Théodore d’Asiné, Jamblique, l’obscur philosophe de Rhodes, Plutarque d’Athènes et Syrianus. À son tour, le Lycien a rédigé un commentaire probablement complet du dialogue qu’il a repris dans son ouvrage final, la Théologie platonicienne. De même, les deux œuvres rassemblées par C.E. Ruelle sous le titre Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis in Platonis Parmenidem⁶ montrent l’importance du dialogue chez Damascius. Cette relecture du Parménide a posé bien des questions aux historiens de la philosophie. On a alors invoqué l’influence d’idées orientales. Il fallait, semble-t-il, excuser des esprits aussi exceptionnels d’avoir « sombré dans l’irrationalisme ». Une telle attitude, déjà fort visible chez V. Cousin⁷, l’éditeur même de Proclus, malheureusement demeure⁸. En fait, chez Plotin, l’orientalisme se limiterait au plus à l’aspiration mystique⁹ : la définition du Bien (épékeina tês ousias) est dans la République, VI 509B9, et les spéculations néopythagoriciennes avaient reconnu dans l’Un du Parménide le Principe de tout¹⁰. Il ne restait qu’à faire le lien, peut-être en retrouvant ainsi la pensée de Speusippe¹¹, mais, sans aucun doute, en s’opposant au platonisme de l’époque. Au IIᵉ siècle notamment, le Parménide était considéré comme une œuvre « logique », un exercice éristique ou un pastiche de la sophistique mégarique. C’était l’opinion des aristotéliciens dont Alexandre d’Aphrodise¹², et aussi celle d’Albinus¹³, par exemple. Pour presque tous¹⁴, le dialogue n’était qu’un jeu discursif employant la méthode des Topiques d’Aristote¹⁵. Il était admis qu’il s’agissait d’une réfutation de l’éléatisme, et, dans la première hypothèse en particulier, d’une réplique ironique de Gorgias¹⁶. La conception néoplatonicienne n’était pas très aisée à soutenir : si le dialogue porte sur des réalités sublimes, pourquoi les faire exposer par Parménide ? D’ailleurs, l’hypothèse est-elle celle de l’Éléate¹⁷ ? Enfin, connaissait-il l’Un avant l’être et la théologie négative ? Comment donc admettre que le dialogue puisse révéler les choses les plus hautes si le Parménide du Poème n’a rien à voir avec le personnage de Platon ? Devant ces questions, la figure de l’Éléate prenait un relief nouveau nécessitant à son tour une lecture nouvelle. Nous allons tenter de montrer comment, principalement chez Plotin et Proclus, Parménide allait s’inscrire dans la perspective historique propre au néoplatonisme, et qui, d’une certaine manière, le définit. [introduction p. 294-295]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"530","_score":null,"_source":{"id":530,"authors_free":[{"id":746,"entry_id":530,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":150,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gu\u00e9rard, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Gu\u00e9rard","norm_person":{"id":150,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Gu\u00e9rard","full_name":"Gu\u00e9rard, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":747,"entry_id":530,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parm\u00e9nide d'\u00c9l\u00e9e chez les N\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"Parm\u00e9nide d'\u00c9l\u00e9e chez les N\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"\u00abLe n\u00e9oplatonisme, \u00e9crit J. Trouillard, succ\u00e8de au \u2018moyen platonisme\u2019 le jour o\u00f9 les platoniciens se mettent \u00e0 chercher dans le Parm\u00e9nide le secret de la philosophie de Platon\u00bb\u00b9. Effectivement, en paraphrasant Proclus, on peut m\u00eame dire que la lecture n\u00e9oplatonicienne du dialogue, et avant tout de la premi\u00e8re hypoth\u00e8se, est le N\u00e9oplatonisme lui-m\u00eame\u00b2.\r\n\r\nSans revenir davantage sur le r\u00f4le consid\u00e9rable du Parm\u00e9nide chez Plotin\u00b3, bornons-nous \u00e0 rappeler qu\u2019il a \u00e9t\u00e9 comment\u00e9 de fa\u00e7on syst\u00e9matique par Porphyre\u2074, puis, comme en t\u00e9moigne Proclus\u2075, par Am\u00e9lius, Th\u00e9odore d\u2019Asin\u00e9, Jamblique, l\u2019obscur philosophe de Rhodes, Plutarque d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes et Syrianus. \u00c0 son tour, le Lycien a r\u00e9dig\u00e9 un commentaire probablement complet du dialogue qu\u2019il a repris dans son ouvrage final, la Th\u00e9ologie platonicienne. De m\u00eame, les deux \u0153uvres rassembl\u00e9es par C.E. Ruelle sous le titre Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis in Platonis Parmenidem\u2076 montrent l\u2019importance du dialogue chez Damascius.\r\n\r\nCette relecture du Parm\u00e9nide a pos\u00e9 bien des questions aux historiens de la philosophie. On a alors invoqu\u00e9 l\u2019influence d\u2019id\u00e9es orientales. Il fallait, semble-t-il, excuser des esprits aussi exceptionnels d\u2019avoir \u00ab sombr\u00e9 dans l\u2019irrationalisme \u00bb. Une telle attitude, d\u00e9j\u00e0 fort visible chez V. Cousin\u2077, l\u2019\u00e9diteur m\u00eame de Proclus, malheureusement demeure\u2078.\r\n\r\nEn fait, chez Plotin, l\u2019orientalisme se limiterait au plus \u00e0 l\u2019aspiration mystique\u2079 : la d\u00e9finition du Bien (\u00e9p\u00e9keina t\u00eas ousias) est dans la R\u00e9publique, VI 509B9, et les sp\u00e9culations n\u00e9opythagoriciennes avaient reconnu dans l\u2019Un du Parm\u00e9nide le Principe de tout\u00b9\u2070. Il ne restait qu\u2019\u00e0 faire le lien, peut-\u00eatre en retrouvant ainsi la pens\u00e9e de Speusippe\u00b9\u00b9, mais, sans aucun doute, en s\u2019opposant au platonisme de l\u2019\u00e9poque.\r\n\r\nAu II\u1d49 si\u00e8cle notamment, le Parm\u00e9nide \u00e9tait consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme une \u0153uvre \u00ab logique \u00bb, un exercice \u00e9ristique ou un pastiche de la sophistique m\u00e9garique. C\u2019\u00e9tait l\u2019opinion des aristot\u00e9liciens dont Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise\u00b9\u00b2, et aussi celle d\u2019Albinus\u00b9\u00b3, par exemple. Pour presque tous\u00b9\u2074, le dialogue n\u2019\u00e9tait qu\u2019un jeu discursif employant la m\u00e9thode des Topiques d\u2019Aristote\u00b9\u2075. Il \u00e9tait admis qu\u2019il s\u2019agissait d\u2019une r\u00e9futation de l\u2019\u00e9l\u00e9atisme, et, dans la premi\u00e8re hypoth\u00e8se en particulier, d\u2019une r\u00e9plique ironique de Gorgias\u00b9\u2076.\r\n\r\nLa conception n\u00e9oplatonicienne n\u2019\u00e9tait pas tr\u00e8s ais\u00e9e \u00e0 soutenir : si le dialogue porte sur des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s sublimes, pourquoi les faire exposer par Parm\u00e9nide ? D\u2019ailleurs, l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se est-elle celle de l\u2019\u00c9l\u00e9ate\u00b9\u2077 ? Enfin, connaissait-il l\u2019Un avant l\u2019\u00eatre et la th\u00e9ologie n\u00e9gative ? Comment donc admettre que le dialogue puisse r\u00e9v\u00e9ler les choses les plus hautes si le Parm\u00e9nide du Po\u00e8me n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec le personnage de Platon ?\r\n\r\nDevant ces questions, la figure de l\u2019\u00c9l\u00e9ate prenait un relief nouveau n\u00e9cessitant \u00e0 son tour une lecture nouvelle. Nous allons tenter de montrer comment, principalement chez Plotin et Proclus, Parm\u00e9nide allait s\u2019inscrire dans la perspective historique propre au n\u00e9oplatonisme, et qui, d\u2019une certaine mani\u00e8re, le d\u00e9finit. [introduction p. 294-295]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8WXrV6XuPyldosH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":150,"full_name":"Gu\u00e9rard, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":530,"section_of":372,"pages":"294-313","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":372,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"\u00c9tudes sur Parm\u00e9nide, Tome II: Probl\u00e8mes d\u2019interpr\u00e9tation","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ojgpMQbpMPY4GeV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":372,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.), 1987
By: Bossier, Fernand, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.)
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 289-325
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bossier, Fernand
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
Si l’on essaie d’évaluer l’influence exercée par un auteur grec sur l’Occident au XIIIe et XIVe s., l’on doit se tourner tout d’abord vers l’étude des traductions. En effet, bien que le nombre de ceux qui connaissaient le grec ait été plus élevé qu’on ne le croit d’ordinaire, la traduction n’en était pas moins, à cette époque et pour longtemps encore, le seul canal par lequel les idées des philosophes et savants grecs pouvaient atteindre les écoles ; le cas des dialogues de Platon est trop connu pour que nous nous y attardions longtemps. L’intention de notre communication, qui concerne la survie du commentaire In De caelo en Occident, sera donc double : d’une part, elle fera l’historique des traductions qui en ont été faites tout au long du XIIIe s. ; d’autre part, elle présentera les résultats d’une première reconnaissance d’un terrain très vaste et à peine défriché, à savoir celui de l’influence qu’ont eue ces traductions sur les traités médiévaux. [introduction p. 289]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"568","_score":null,"_source":{"id":568,"authors_free":[{"id":806,"entry_id":568,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bossier, Fernand","free_first_name":"Fernand","free_last_name":"Bossier","norm_person":{"id":12,"first_name":"Fernand ","last_name":"Bossier","full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017981663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":807,"entry_id":568,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.)","main_title":{"title":"Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.)"},"abstract":"Si l\u2019on essaie d\u2019\u00e9valuer l\u2019influence exerc\u00e9e par un auteur grec sur l\u2019Occident au XIIIe et XIVe s., l\u2019on doit se tourner tout d\u2019abord vers l\u2019\u00e9tude des traductions. En effet, bien que le nombre de ceux qui connaissaient le grec ait \u00e9t\u00e9 plus \u00e9lev\u00e9 qu\u2019on ne le croit d\u2019ordinaire, la traduction n\u2019en \u00e9tait pas moins, \u00e0 cette \u00e9poque et pour longtemps encore, le seul canal par lequel les id\u00e9es des philosophes et savants grecs pouvaient atteindre les \u00e9coles ; le cas des dialogues de Platon est trop connu pour que nous nous y attardions longtemps. L\u2019intention de notre communication, qui concerne la survie du commentaire In De caelo en Occident, sera donc double : d\u2019une part, elle fera l\u2019historique des traductions qui en ont \u00e9t\u00e9 faites tout au long du XIIIe s. ; d\u2019autre part, elle pr\u00e9sentera les r\u00e9sultats d\u2019une premi\u00e8re reconnaissance d\u2019un terrain tr\u00e8s vaste et \u00e0 peine d\u00e9frich\u00e9, \u00e0 savoir celui de l\u2019influence qu\u2019ont eue ces traductions sur les trait\u00e9s m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux. [introduction p. 289]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aFzlEmFULfnA7eU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":568,"section_of":171,"pages":"289-325","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD, 1987
By: Gottschalk, Hans B., Haase, Wolfgang (Ed.), Temporini, Hildegard (Ed.)
Title Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie
Pages 1079-1174
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gottschalk, Hans B.
Editor(s) Haase, Wolfgang , Temporini, Hildegard
Translator(s)
It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle’s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle’s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric’ writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin. We may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle’s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school’s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers. This dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric’ and the 'esoteric,’ to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius’ source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric’ (or 'acroamatic’) and 'exoteric’ writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric’ works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school. The same continuity is found in the school’s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus’ edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle’s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle’s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics. There is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle’s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age. All this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle’s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents. The specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle’s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle’s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas. New developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle’s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle’s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle’s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints. At this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy. There is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked—a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann’s sense of the word, of Aristotle’s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle’s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher’s philosopher. [conclusion p. 1172-1174]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1332","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1332,"authors_free":[{"id":1965,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2382,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2383,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":453,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","free_first_name":"Hildegard","free_last_name":"Temporini","norm_person":{"id":453,"first_name":"Hildegard","last_name":"Temporini","full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754013","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD"},"abstract":"It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle\u2019s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle\u2019s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric\u2019 writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin.\r\n\r\nWe may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school\u2019s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers.\r\n\r\nThis dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric\u2019 and the 'esoteric,\u2019 to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius\u2019 source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric\u2019 (or 'acroamatic\u2019) and 'exoteric\u2019 writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric\u2019 works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school.\r\n\r\nThe same continuity is found in the school\u2019s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus\u2019 edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics.\r\n\r\nThere is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle\u2019s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age.\r\n\r\nAll this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents.\r\n\r\nThe specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle\u2019s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas.\r\n\r\nNew developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle\u2019s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle\u2019s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle\u2019s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints.\r\n\r\nAt this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy.\r\n\r\nThere is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked\u2014a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann\u2019s sense of the word, of Aristotle\u2019s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle\u2019s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher\u2019s philosopher.\r\n[conclusion p. 1172-1174]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FPwm868kRTy5Ier","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":453,"full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1332,"section_of":335,"pages":"1079-1174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, 1987
By: Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1987
Publication Place Ithaca, New York
Publisher Cornell University Press
Edition No. 1
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1383","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1383,"authors_free":[{"id":2134,"entry_id":1383,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science"},"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","btype":4,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1987]}

John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?, 1986
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1986
Journal Hermes
Volume 114
Pages 314–335
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
What, in the end, can we say about Philoponus’ position as a Platonist, bearing in mind that our conclusions must still in some respects be provision­al? That he was a Neoplatonist is indisputable. Since, however, few if any, of his differences with other Neoplatonists seem to arise from the adoption of a specifically Alexandrian philosophical point of view, we must attribute them to his own philosophical - and theological - orientation. It turns out that, in his case, »Alexandrian Platonist« may mean little more than a man whose philosophy was Neoplatonic, and who worked at Alexandria, though one might observe that there would not have been a warm welcome at Athens for a Christian Neoplatonist, however closely his views might conform to those codified by Proclus and developed by Damascius. One could go on to say that, apart from the concentration on Aristotle, his differences from other Alexandrians were greater than theirs from the Athenians. In this connection we should notice Philoponus’ frequent appeals to Plato against Aristotle in the passages Simplicius singles out for complaint, and his relatively frequent reservations about the agreement, symphônia, of Plato and Aristotle, which most others eagerly sought to demonstrate. And since we started with a critique of P r a e c h t e r , who did so much to initiate the serious study of the Aristotelian commentators, it might be appropriate to end with his characteri­ sation of Philoponus in the De aeternitate mundi: »es ist der gelehrte Platoniker der spricht«. [conclusion, p. 334-335]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"628","_score":null,"_source":{"id":628,"authors_free":[{"id":888,"entry_id":628,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?"},"abstract":"What, in the end, can we say about Philoponus\u2019 position as a Platonist, bearing in mind that our conclusions must still in some respects be provision\u00adal? That he was a Neoplatonist is indisputable. Since, however, few if any, of \r\nhis differences with other Neoplatonists seem to arise from the adoption of a specifically Alexandrian philosophical point of view, we must attribute them to his own philosophical - and theological - orientation. It turns out that, in \r\nhis case, \u00bbAlexandrian Platonist\u00ab may mean little more than a man whose philosophy was Neoplatonic, and who worked at Alexandria, though one might observe that there would not have been a warm welcome at Athens for a \r\nChristian Neoplatonist, however closely his views might conform to those codified by Proclus and developed by Damascius. One could go on to say \r\nthat, apart from the concentration on Aristotle, his differences from other Alexandrians were greater than theirs from the Athenians. In this connection \r\nwe should notice Philoponus\u2019 frequent appeals to Plato against Aristotle in the passages Simplicius singles out for complaint, and his relatively frequent reservations about the agreement, symph\u00f4nia, of Plato and Aristotle, which \r\nmost others eagerly sought to demonstrate. And since we started with a critique of P r a e c h t e r , who did so much to initiate the serious study of the \r\nAristotelian commentators, it might be appropriate to end with his characteri\u00ad\r\nsation of Philoponus in the De aeternitate mundi: \u00bbes ist der gelehrte Platoniker der spricht\u00ab. [conclusion, p. 334-335]\r\n","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cP5twq2fWJQvBVn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":628,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"114","issue":"","pages":"314\u2013335"}},"sort":[1986]}

Simplicio, gli stoici e le categorie, 1986
By: Isnardi Parente, Margherita
Title Simplicio, gli stoici e le categorie
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 1986
Journal Rivista di storia della filosofia
Volume 41
Issue 1
Pages 3-18
Categories no categories
Author(s) Isnardi Parente, Margherita
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius, In Arist. Categ.,165, 32 sqq. Kalbfleisch, give us an example of the Stoic theory of the categories which seems to be inconsistent with the better known chrysippean theory of the ‘quadri¬partite division’. In Simplicius’ statement we find a first diaeresis (kath’hautá/prós ti) and a second division or hypodiaeresis (‘differentiated relations’ and ‘simple dispositions’ or correlations). Such a division follows a rather platonic-academic schematisms, and — as in Xenocratean or Hermodorean classification of being — the concept of relation occupies in it a privilegiate place. Instead of speaking simply of a continuity between Academy and Stoa, we can more probably hypothize a change in the development of the Stoic theory. The concept of ‘relation’ has an increas¬ing importance after Chrysippus, with the elaboration, by Antipater of Tarsus, of the concept of héxis and hektón; whereas the concept of quality — which is regarded, from Zeno to Chrysippus, as a corporeal entity, substratum, pneuma — is profoundly altered by the introduction of the new concept of ‘incorporeal qualities’. Perhaps later Stoics approached Academic thought in their attempt of a new kind of division, in order to find a better ontological status for ‘relation’ and ‘incorporeity’. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1090","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1090,"authors_free":[{"id":1648,"entry_id":1090,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":282,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","free_first_name":"Margherita","free_last_name":"Isnardi Parente","norm_person":{"id":282,"first_name":"Margherita","last_name":"Isnardi Parente","full_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1023256045","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicio, gli stoici e le categorie","main_title":{"title":"Simplicio, gli stoici e le categorie"},"abstract":"Simplicius, In Arist. Categ.,165, 32 sqq. Kalbfleisch, give us an example of the Stoic theory of the categories which seems to be inconsistent with the better known chrysippean theory of the \u2018quadri\u00acpartite division\u2019. In Simplicius\u2019 statement we find a first diaeresis (kath\u2019haut\u00e1\/pr\u00f3s ti) and a second division or hypodiaeresis (\u2018differentiated relations\u2019 and \u2018simple dispositions\u2019 or correlations). Such a division follows a rather platonic-academic schematisms, and \u2014 as in Xenocratean or Hermodorean classification of being \u2014 the concept of relation occupies in it a privilegiate place. Instead of speaking simply of a continuity between Academy and Stoa, we can more probably hypothize a change in the development of the Stoic theory. The concept of \u2018relation\u2019 has an increas\u00acing importance after Chrysippus, with the elaboration, by Antipater of Tarsus, of the concept of h\u00e9xis and hekt\u00f3n; whereas the concept of quality \u2014 which is regarded, from Zeno to Chrysippus, as a corporeal entity, substratum, pneuma \u2014 is profoundly altered by the introduction of the new concept of \u2018incorporeal qualities\u2019. Perhaps later Stoics approached Academic thought in their attempt of a new kind of division, in order to find a better ontological status for \u2018relation\u2019 and \u2018incorporeity\u2019. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zjhuwrqRYr6pD6m","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":282,"full_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1090,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rivista di storia della filosofia","volume":"41","issue":"1","pages":"3-18"}},"sort":[1986]}

The Cosmology of Parmenides, 1986
By: Finkelberg, Aryeh
Title The Cosmology of Parmenides
Type Article
Language English
Date 1986
Journal The American Journal of Philology
Volume 107
Issue 3
Pages 303-317
Categories no categories
Author(s) Finkelberg, Aryeh
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Our main source of information about the cosmological compo­nent of Parmenides’ doctrine of Opinion —apart from the first three and a half abstruse lines of fr. 12 — is Aetius’ account. This, however, is generally regarded as confused, garbled and incompatible with fr. 12. The reconstruction of Parmenides’ cosmology is thus considered a hope­less task, for “it must inevitably be based on many conjectures.” I, however, cannot accept this conclusion, for, as I argue below, it is possible to provide a reasonably intelligible account of Aetius’ report (except for the corrupt sentence about the goddess) which is also com­patible with fr. 12, provided, of course, that we are not bent upon prov­ing our sources incompatible, but rather seek to reconcile them. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"548","_score":null,"_source":{"id":548,"authors_free":[{"id":772,"entry_id":548,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":113,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","free_first_name":"Aryeh","free_last_name":"Finkelberg","norm_person":{"id":113,"first_name":"Aryeh","last_name":"Finkelberg","full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1124815007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Cosmology of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"The Cosmology of Parmenides"},"abstract":"Our main source of information about the cosmological compo\u00adnent of Parmenides\u2019 doctrine of Opinion \u2014apart from the first three and a half abstruse lines of fr. 12 \u2014 is Aetius\u2019 account. This, however, is generally regarded as confused, garbled and incompatible with fr. 12. The reconstruction of Parmenides\u2019 cosmology is thus considered a hope\u00adless task, for \u201cit must inevitably be based on many conjectures.\u201d I, however, cannot accept this conclusion, for, as I argue below, it is possible to provide a reasonably intelligible account of Aetius\u2019 report (except for the corrupt sentence about the goddess) which is also com\u00adpatible with fr. 12, provided, of course, that we are not bent upon prov\u00ading our sources incompatible, but rather seek to reconcile them. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3OYYrw5qTwsrSkx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":113,"full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":548,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The American Journal of Philology","volume":"107","issue":"3","pages":"303-317"}},"sort":[1986]}

Colloque international sur la vie, l'œuvre et la survie de Simplicius, 1986
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut
Title Colloque international sur la vie, l'œuvre et la survie de Simplicius
Type Article
Language German
Date 1986
Journal Gnomon
Volume 58
Issue 2
Pages 191-192
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Vom 28. September bis zum 1. Oktober 1985 fand in Paris in der Fondation Hugot du Collège de France ein internationales Colloquium statt, das zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie und der Geschichte der Philosophie den neuplatonischen Philosophen Simplikios zum Gegenstand hatte. Das Ziel des Colloquiums war es, einen ersten Gedankenaustausch derjenigen, nicht sehr zahlreichen, Wissenschaftler zu ermöglichen, die etwa seit einem Jahrzehnt begonnen haben, das philosophische Denken des Simplikios systematisch zu erfassen, gesicherte Text grundlagen durch die Erstellung neuer kritischer Editionen zu liefern und die Texte selbst durch Übersetzungen einem weiteren, philosophisch interessierten Publikum zugänglich zu machen.

{"_index":"sire","_id":"584","_score":null,"_source":{"id":584,"authors_free":[{"id":828,"entry_id":584,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Colloque international sur la vie, l'\u0153uvre et la survie de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Colloque international sur la vie, l'\u0153uvre et la survie de Simplicius"},"abstract":"Vom 28. September bis zum 1. Oktober 1985 fand in Paris in der Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France ein internationales Colloquium statt, das zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie und der Geschichte der Philosophie den neuplatonischen Philosophen Simplikios zum Gegenstand hatte. Das Ziel des Colloquiums war es, einen ersten Gedankenaustausch derjenigen, nicht sehr zahlreichen, Wissenschaftler zu erm\u00f6glichen, die etwa seit einem Jahrzehnt begonnen haben, das philosophische Denken des Simplikios systematisch zu erfassen, gesicherte Text grundlagen durch die Erstellung neuer kritischer Editionen zu liefern und die Texte selbst durch \u00dcbersetzungen einem weiteren, philosophisch interessierten Publikum zug\u00e4nglich zu machen. ","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AUBZDJhIvjp1dxV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":584,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Gnomon","volume":"58","issue":"2","pages":"191-192"}},"sort":[1986]}

Boethus' Psychology and the Neoplatonists, 1986
By: Gottschalk, Hans B.
Title Boethus' Psychology and the Neoplatonists
Type Article
Language English
Date 1986
Journal Phronesis
Volume 31
Issue 3
Pages 243-257
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gottschalk, Hans B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Three writers of late antiquity, all of them Neoplatonists, refer to the psychological doctrine of a certain Boethus. Several philosophers of that name are known, and the fragments have been variously assigned to the Stoic, Boethus of Sidon, who lived in the middle of the second century BC, and his Peripatetic namesake, active about a century later. ' The purpose of this article is to see what exactly we can learn about this thinker from the extant fragments and then to determine which of the various Boethi he is most likely to have been. [introduction, p. 243]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1331","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1331,"authors_free":[{"id":1964,"entry_id":1331,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk,","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Boethus' Psychology and the Neoplatonists","main_title":{"title":"Boethus' Psychology and the Neoplatonists"},"abstract":"Three writers of late antiquity, all of them Neoplatonists, refer to the psychological doctrine of a certain Boethus. Several philosophers of that name are known, and the fragments have been variously assigned to the Stoic, Boethus of Sidon, who lived in the middle of the second century BC, and his Peripatetic namesake, active about a century later. ' The purpose of this article is to see what exactly we can learn about this thinker from the extant fragments and then to determine which of the various Boethi he is most likely to have been. [introduction, p. 243]","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5lu8RgGIGt7Wnhe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1331,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"31","issue":"3","pages":"243-257"}},"sort":[1986]}

Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars, 1985
By: Lamberz, Erich, Pépin, Jean (Ed.), Saffrey, Henri Dominique (Ed.)
Title Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1985
Published in Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)
Pages 1-20
Categories no categories
Author(s) Lamberz, Erich
Editor(s) Pépin, Jean , Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Translator(s)
In den bisherigen Untersuchungen zur Form der Kommentare des Proklos und der Neuplatoniker im allgemeinen ist vor allem Gewicht darauf gelegt worden, daß die Kommentare aus der mündlichen Exegese der Texte hervorgegangen sind und die Formen dieser mündlichen Exegese sich in den schriftlich fixierten Werken widerspiegeln. Neben Spuren mündlicher Ausdrucksformen und Reflexen von Schuldiskussio­nen gehört zu diesen Formen vor allem die Gliederung der Exegese in Abschnitte, die Vorlesungseinheiten (praxeis) entsprechen, und die Unterteilung der einzelnen Abschnitte in Allgemeinerklärung (theôria) und Einzelerklärung (lexis). Bis jetzt blieb jedoch weitgehend die Frage außer B etracht, ob und wie sich die von den Exegeten selbst redigierten Kommentare von Vorlesungsnachschriften unterscheiden. Es erscheint deshalb sinnvoll, den Blickwinkel einmal umzukehren und zu fragen, welche spezifischen Formelemente sich in den Kommentaren des Proklos und anderer Neuplatoniker aufzeigen lassen, wenn man sie in erster Linie als literarische Erzeugnisse und nicht als Niederschlag mündlicher Exegese betrachtet. Im folgenden soll zu diesem Zweck nach einigen terminologischen Voruntersuchungen die Form der Lemmata, deren Einfügung in den Kom m entartext und der Aufbau der einzelnen Kommentarabschnitte besprochen werden. [Introduction, p. 1-2]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1191","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1191,"authors_free":[{"id":1762,"entry_id":1191,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":226,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lamberz, Erich","free_first_name":"Erich","free_last_name":"Lamberz","norm_person":{"id":226,"first_name":"Erich","last_name":"Lamberz","full_name":"Lamberz, Erich","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/125040709","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2057,"entry_id":1191,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":227,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":{"id":227,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"P\u00e9pin","full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119165147","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2058,"entry_id":1191,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars","main_title":{"title":"Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars"},"abstract":"In den bisherigen Untersuchungen zur Form der Kommentare des Proklos und der Neuplatoniker im allgemeinen ist vor allem Gewicht darauf gelegt worden, da\u00df die Kommentare aus der m\u00fcndlichen Exegese der Texte hervorgegangen sind und die Formen dieser m\u00fcndlichen \r\nExegese sich in den schriftlich fixierten Werken widerspiegeln. Neben Spuren m\u00fcndlicher Ausdrucksformen und Reflexen von Schuldiskussio\u00adnen geh\u00f6rt zu diesen Formen vor allem die Gliederung der Exegese in Abschnitte, die Vorlesungseinheiten (praxeis) entsprechen, und die \r\nUnterteilung der einzelnen Abschnitte in Allgemeinerkl\u00e4rung (the\u00f4ria) und Einzelerkl\u00e4rung (lexis). Bis jetzt blieb jedoch weitgehend die Frage au\u00dfer B etracht, ob und wie sich die von den Exegeten selbst redigierten \r\nKommentare von Vorlesungsnachschriften unterscheiden. Es erscheint \r\ndeshalb sinnvoll, den Blickwinkel einmal umzukehren und zu fragen, welche spezifischen Formelemente sich in den Kommentaren des Proklos \r\nund anderer Neuplatoniker aufzeigen lassen, wenn man sie in erster Linie als literarische Erzeugnisse und nicht als Niederschlag m\u00fcndlicher Exegese betrachtet. Im folgenden soll zu diesem Zweck nach einigen \r\nterminologischen Voruntersuchungen die Form der Lemmata, deren Einf\u00fcgung in den Kom m entartext und der Aufbau der einzelnen \r\nKommentarabschnitte besprochen werden. [Introduction, p. 1-2]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WFCq8CflnlIPypA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":226,"full_name":"Lamberz, Erich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":227,"full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1191,"section_of":159,"pages":"1-20","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":159,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"P\u00e9pin-Saffrey1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Du 5e si\u00e8cle jusqu'au d\u00e9but du 19e si\u00e8cle, Proclus fut consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme l'h\u00e9ritier par excellence de Platon, celui qui avait su tirer des dialogues un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique et coh\u00e9rent de la philosophie platonicienne. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QluMshmjYrV5JtV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":159,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre national de la recherche scientifique","series":"Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1985]}

Les sources vénitiennes de l’édition aldine du Livre I du Commentaire de Simplicius sur la „Physique“ d’Aristote, 1985
By: Codero, Néstor-Luis
Title Les sources vénitiennes de l’édition aldine du Livre I du Commentaire de Simplicius sur la „Physique“ d’Aristote
Type Article
Language French
Date 1985
Journal Scriptorium
Volume 39
Issue 1
Pages 70–88
Categories no categories
Author(s) Codero, Néstor-Luis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Nous pouvons revenir maintenant à notre point de départ : qui a été le responsable de l'édition de 1526 ? Aucun des éléments nouveaux ne s'oppose à notre hypothèse initiale : l'édition est due aux soins de Francesco d'Asola, responsable de la plupart des titres publiés « ex aedibus Aldi » depuis 1518. Nous avons vu qu'il était le destinataire des manuscrits d'Aetius empruntés par Marcantonio Contarini à la Marciana, et nous avons supposé que le même procédé s'était appliqué aux deux textes de Simplicius édités en 1526. Nous conservons une image très floue de ce personnage, dont le nom complet était Gian Francesco Torresani d'Asola. Il était le beau-frère d'Alde Manuce ; son père, Andrea d'Asola, fut le responsable de l'imprimerie depuis la mort d'Alde (1514) jusqu'à 1529. Selon Degli Agostini, Francesco d'Asola était le protégé du cardinal Hercule de Gonzague — auquel est dédiée l'édition de la Physique — et il avait repris avec succès l'héritage d'Alde. Pour J. B. Egnazio, d'Asola était un « jeune homme cultivé ayant les meilleures habitudes » et, en 1542, Pellicier le remercie de l'envoi à la bibliothèque de Fontainebleau de quatre-vingts manuscrits grecs et de quelques autres manuscrits latins. Malgré sa gentillesse et ses « meilleures habitudes », il est évident que d'Asola n'adopte pas la devise d'Alde : « Non enim recipio emendaturum libros », car il a beaucoup amendé. Diels avait raison lorsqu'il signalait que « Aldini exempli editor haud pauca novavit, infeliciter plurima ». [conclusion p. 86]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"604","_score":null,"_source":{"id":604,"authors_free":[{"id":855,"entry_id":604,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":54,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Codero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_last_name":"Codero","norm_person":{"id":54,"first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","last_name":"Cordero","full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055808973","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les sources v\u00e9nitiennes de l\u2019\u00e9dition aldine du Livre I du Commentaire de Simplicius sur la \u201ePhysique\u201c d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Les sources v\u00e9nitiennes de l\u2019\u00e9dition aldine du Livre I du Commentaire de Simplicius sur la \u201ePhysique\u201c d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Nous pouvons revenir maintenant \u00e0 notre point de d\u00e9part : qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 le responsable de l'\u00e9dition de 1526 ? Aucun des \u00e9l\u00e9ments nouveaux ne s'oppose \u00e0 notre hypoth\u00e8se initiale : l'\u00e9dition est due aux soins de Francesco d'Asola, responsable de la plupart des titres publi\u00e9s \u00ab ex aedibus Aldi \u00bb depuis 1518.\r\n\r\nNous avons vu qu'il \u00e9tait le destinataire des manuscrits d'Aetius emprunt\u00e9s par Marcantonio Contarini \u00e0 la Marciana, et nous avons suppos\u00e9 que le m\u00eame proc\u00e9d\u00e9 s'\u00e9tait appliqu\u00e9 aux deux textes de Simplicius \u00e9dit\u00e9s en 1526.\r\n\r\nNous conservons une image tr\u00e8s floue de ce personnage, dont le nom complet \u00e9tait Gian Francesco Torresani d'Asola. Il \u00e9tait le beau-fr\u00e8re d'Alde Manuce ; son p\u00e8re, Andrea d'Asola, fut le responsable de l'imprimerie depuis la mort d'Alde (1514) jusqu'\u00e0 1529.\r\n\r\nSelon Degli Agostini, Francesco d'Asola \u00e9tait le prot\u00e9g\u00e9 du cardinal Hercule de Gonzague \u2014 auquel est d\u00e9di\u00e9e l'\u00e9dition de la Physique \u2014 et il avait repris avec succ\u00e8s l'h\u00e9ritage d'Alde. Pour J. B. Egnazio, d'Asola \u00e9tait un \u00ab jeune homme cultiv\u00e9 ayant les meilleures habitudes \u00bb et, en 1542, Pellicier le remercie de l'envoi \u00e0 la biblioth\u00e8que de Fontainebleau de quatre-vingts manuscrits grecs et de quelques autres manuscrits latins.\r\n\r\nMalgr\u00e9 sa gentillesse et ses \u00ab meilleures habitudes \u00bb, il est \u00e9vident que d'Asola n'adopte pas la devise d'Alde : \u00ab Non enim recipio emendaturum libros \u00bb, car il a beaucoup amend\u00e9.\r\n\r\nDiels avait raison lorsqu'il signalait que \u00ab Aldini exempli editor haud pauca novavit, infeliciter plurima \u00bb. [conclusion p. 86]","btype":3,"date":"1985","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gj5dBBrkScJI1Gs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":54,"full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":604,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Scriptorium","volume":"39","issue":"1","pages":"70\u201388"}},"sort":[1985]}

Theophrastus on the Heavens, 1985
By: Sharples, Robert W., Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Theophrastus on the Heavens
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1985
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule
Pages 577-593
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
In this paper, I shall be discussing two topics: firstly, whether Theophrastus followed Aristotle in holding that the heavens were made of a substance—the ether—distinct from the four sublunary elements, or whether, as some have argued, he held that the heavens were made of fire; and secondly, the exact interpretation of certain technical terms of astronomy attributed to Theophrastus. I am throughout indebted to the work of my colleagues in Project Theophrastus, and especially to Professor William Fortenbaugh and Mrs. Pamela Huby. It was an interest in the Peripatetic tradition generally that led me to work on Theophrastus, and that interest has been both formed and stimulated by the works of Professor Paul Moraux; the theme of the present paper is one that he has himself discussed. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1028","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1028,"authors_free":[{"id":1553,"entry_id":1028,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1554,"entry_id":1028,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus on the Heavens","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus on the Heavens"},"abstract":"In this paper, I shall be discussing two topics: firstly, whether Theophrastus followed Aristotle in holding that the heavens were made of a substance\u2014the ether\u2014distinct from the four sublunary elements, or whether, as some have argued, he held that the heavens were made of fire; and secondly, the exact interpretation of certain technical terms of astronomy attributed to Theophrastus. I am throughout indebted to the work of my colleagues in Project Theophrastus, and especially to Professor William Fortenbaugh and Mrs. Pamela Huby. It was an interest in the Peripatetic tradition generally that led me to work on Theophrastus, and that interest has been both formed and stimulated by the works of Professor Paul Moraux; the theme of the present paper is one that he has himself discussed. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V9G65AXaBlaZSt7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1028,"section_of":190,"pages":"577-593","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":190,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Plezia\/Verdenius\/P\u00e9pin1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1985]}

Strato’s theory of the void, 1985
By: Furley, David J. , Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Strato’s theory of the void
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1985
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule
Pages 594-609
Categories no categories
Author(s) Furley, David J.
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
At the beginning of his Corollary on Place (In Phys. 601, 14-24), Simplicius classifies theories about place, as follows. First, there is a distinction between those who make place a corporeal thing and those who suppose it is incorporeal. Only Proclus falls into the first class. O f the latter, some think it is without extension, the rest think it is extended. The first group consists of Plato, who said place is the material substrate of bodies, and Damascius, who said it is that which completes the nature of bodies. The second group is further subdivided, into those who held place to be extended in two dimen­ sions, “as Aristotle and the whole Peripatos did”, and those who gave it three dimensions. The latter can be subdivided again: on the one hand, there is the school of Democritus and Epicurus, who held that place is everywhere undifferentiated, and sometimes persists without any body in it, and on the other hand, “the famous Plato- nists and Strato of Lampsacus”, who said that place is an extended interval (diastema) that always contains body and is adapted to its particular occupant... [p. 594]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"785","_score":null,"_source":{"id":785,"authors_free":[{"id":1157,"entry_id":785,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":103,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Furley, David J. ","free_first_name":"David J. ","free_last_name":"Furley","norm_person":{"id":103,"first_name":"David J. ","last_name":"Furley","full_name":"Furley, David J. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138978131","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2354,"entry_id":785,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Strato\u2019s theory of the void","main_title":{"title":"Strato\u2019s theory of the void"},"abstract":"At the beginning of his Corollary on Place (In Phys. 601, 14-24), \r\nSimplicius classifies theories about place, as follows. First, there is a \r\ndistinction between those who make place a corporeal thing and \r\nthose who suppose it is incorporeal. Only Proclus falls into the first \r\nclass. O f the latter, some think it is without extension, the rest think \r\nit is extended. The first group consists of Plato, who said place is the \r\nmaterial substrate of bodies, and Damascius, who said it is that \r\nwhich completes the nature of bodies. The second group is further \r\nsubdivided, into those who held place to be extended in two dimen\u00ad\r\nsions, \u201cas Aristotle and the whole Peripatos did\u201d, and those who \r\ngave it three dimensions. The latter can be subdivided again: on the \r\none hand, there is the school of Democritus and Epicurus, who held \r\nthat place is everywhere undifferentiated, and sometimes persists \r\nwithout any body in it, and on the other hand, \u201cthe famous Plato- \r\nnists and Strato of Lampsacus\u201d, who said that place is an extended \r\ninterval (diastema) that always contains body and is adapted to its \r\nparticular occupant... [p. 594]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/67tMakGWPrXgZyV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":103,"full_name":"Furley, David J. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":785,"section_of":190,"pages":"594-609","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":190,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Plezia\/Verdenius\/P\u00e9pin1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1985]}

The End of Aristotle's on Prayer, 1985
By: Rist, John M.
Title The End of Aristotle's on Prayer
Type Article
Language English
Date 1985
Journal The American Journal of Philology
Volume 106
Issue 1
Pages 110-113
Categories no categories
Author(s) Rist, John M.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Jean Pépin recently devoted a lengthy study to Aristotle's On Prayer. There is good reason to think that the work never existed. On Prayer is listed in Diogenes Laertius' catalogue of Aristotle's writings (5.22) and in the Vita Hesychii. The only other evidence for its existence is a passage of Simplicius that tells us that at the end of On Prayer, Aristotle says clearly that God is either mind or somehow beyond mind (ἢ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ νοῦ). The claim that God is beyond mind is unique in an unemended Aristotelian text, but the notion would be acceptable to Simplicius both because, as a Neoplatonist, he would believe it to be true, and because as a Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle, he would be happy to find evidence of the basic philosophical harmony of Aristotle and Plato. Our problem, therefore, is to see why Simplicius thought that Aristotle held this view. The immediate answer is that he thought he had found it in a text of Aristotle's called On Prayer (or perhaps more likely in an anthology of Aristotelian material claiming that this was Aristotle's view in such a work). But if there was no such work On Prayer, how could Simplicius (or his source) think there was, and what is the actual source of the apparent fragment that claims that for Aristotle, God might be "beyond mind"? It is possible to understand how Simplicius was misled. There is a Latin work in two chapters called De Bona Fortuna. It is composed of Magna Moralia 2.8 and Eudemian Ethics 8.2. Of the 56 surviving manuscripts of De Bona Fortuna, the earliest datable version is Vat. Lat. 2083, of the year 1284. The producer of this text is unknown. De Bona Fortuna is not an excerpt from existing Latin translations of Magna Moralia and Eudemian Ethics, because although Bartholomew of Messina translated the Magna Moralia between 1258 and 1266, and although a Greek manuscript of the Eudemian Ethics may have been known in Messina before 1250, there are no medieval Latin translations of the Eudemian Ethics as a whole; indeed, the only other section of the text translated is E.E. 8.3. The original sources of De Bona Fortuna were known to at least some of those who copied it in Latin, but the work itself is a direct translation from Greek. So, unless the translator also both excerpted and combined the two parts of the De Bona Fortuna himself, and showed no concern for the fact that the rest of the Eudemian Ethics was still untranslated, and perhaps even still unknown (which is highly unlikely), he must have used a Greek original of De Bona Fortuna in the form of a separate treatise composed of M.M. 2.8 and E.E. 8.2. The title of the treatise, presumably, was the Greek equivalent of De Bona Fortuna, that is, Περὶ Εὐτυχίας. We have no means of telling when it was assembled, but there is no reason why it should not be ancient and indeed have been available to Simplicius or (if Simplicius is quoting an anthology of some sort) to his source. E.E. 8.2 (1248A28) unemended, reads as follows: Τί οὖν ἂν κρεῖττον καὶ ἐπισημότερον εἴποι τις ἢ θεὸς. Spengel added the words καὶ νοῦ after εἴποι, following the reading et intellectu found in De Bona Fortuna. Thus, the Greek original of De Bona Fortuna read: Τί οὖν ἂν κρεῖττον καὶ ἐπισημότερον εἴποι καὶ νοῦ πάλιν θεὸς. Thus, in Περὶ Εὐτυχίας, God is greater than mind. Admittedly, Περὶ Εὐτυχίας did not say that God is "beyond mind" (ἐπέκεινα τοῦ νοῦ), only that he is greater than mind. But in Platonic or Neopythagorean writings of late antiquity, these phrases are virtually interchangeable. The most striking evidence is from Plotinus, who uses ἐπέκεινα τοῦ νοῦ dozens of times and also gives the best examples of the One being "greater (κρείττων)" than mind (5.3.14.16-18, 5.3.16.38, 5.3.17.1-3). Simplicius thought he knew about an Aristotelian text On Prayer (Περὶ Εὐχῆς). Let us suppose that he had direct or indirect access to a work originally called On Good Fortune (Περὶ Εὐτυχίας). The corruption of Εὐτυχίας to Εὐχῆς is easy. In this text, Simplicius found the remark that God is "greater than mind." There is no reason to assume that Simplicius is quoting On Good Fortune verbatim. For Simplicius, as a Neoplatonist, to say that God is "greater than mind" is the same as to say that he is "beyond (ἐπέκεινα) mind." The use of ἐπέκεινα in this way derives, of course, from Neoplatonic, Middle Platonic, and Neopythagorean interpretations of Plato's Republic 509B. Let us therefore posit the following sequence of events. A Greek text, including (but not necessarily restricted to) M.M. 2.8 and E.E. 8.2, is compiled and originally entitled Περὶ Εὐτυχίας. It comes to contain, at some point, an un-Aristotelian phrase (absent from the original text of the E.E. and based on a misinterpretation of that text) saying that God is "greater than mind." The title of the work is at some stage corrupted: Περὶ Εὐτυχίας becomes Περὶ Εὐχῆς. Simplicius either reads it under this title or, more likely, finds it so cited by an excerpter or commentator of Platonizing tendencies. Either Simplicius or the excerpter paraphrases κρείττον τοῦ νοῦ as ἐπέκεινα τοῦ νοῦ. Hence, our alleged fragment of Aristotle's work On Prayer, found in Simplicius, is really a corrupted fragment of Περὶ Εὐτυχίας, a work whose origin is lost but which reaches Simplicius, or becomes known to him, through the medium of a Platonizing tradition. The date of the original compilation Περὶ Εὐτυχίας remains unknown, but it must have been early enough for its title, in a mistaken form, to have found its way onto the lists of Aristotle's writings. The corruption of the title was probably achieved by a librarian's error long before the crucial phrase καὶ νοῦ (absent, as we have seen, from the Eudemian Ethics) was imported into the text itself. This can hardly have occurred before the revival of Neopythagoreanism, that is, before the second century B.C. It is not impossible that it was post-Plotinian. [the entire text]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"858","_score":null,"_source":{"id":858,"authors_free":[{"id":1262,"entry_id":858,"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 End of Aristotle's on Prayer","main_title":{"title":"The End of Aristotle's on Prayer"},"abstract":"Jean P\u00e9pin recently devoted a lengthy study to Aristotle's On Prayer. There is good reason to think that the work never existed. On Prayer is listed in Diogenes Laertius' catalogue of Aristotle's writings (5.22) and in the Vita Hesychii. The only other evidence for its existence is a passage of Simplicius that tells us that at the end of On Prayer, Aristotle says clearly that God is either mind or somehow beyond mind (\u1f22 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6).\r\n\r\nThe claim that God is beyond mind is unique in an unemended Aristotelian text, but the notion would be acceptable to Simplicius both because, as a Neoplatonist, he would believe it to be true, and because as a Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle, he would be happy to find evidence of the basic philosophical harmony of Aristotle and Plato. Our problem, therefore, is to see why Simplicius thought that Aristotle held this view. The immediate answer is that he thought he had found it in a text of Aristotle's called On Prayer (or perhaps more likely in an anthology of Aristotelian material claiming that this was Aristotle's view in such a work).\r\n\r\nBut if there was no such work On Prayer, how could Simplicius (or his source) think there was, and what is the actual source of the apparent fragment that claims that for Aristotle, God might be \"beyond mind\"? It is possible to understand how Simplicius was misled.\r\n\r\nThere is a Latin work in two chapters called De Bona Fortuna. It is composed of Magna Moralia 2.8 and Eudemian Ethics 8.2. Of the 56 surviving manuscripts of De Bona Fortuna, the earliest datable version is Vat. Lat. 2083, of the year 1284. The producer of this text is unknown. De Bona Fortuna is not an excerpt from existing Latin translations of Magna Moralia and Eudemian Ethics, because although Bartholomew of Messina translated the Magna Moralia between 1258 and 1266, and although a Greek manuscript of the Eudemian Ethics may have been known in Messina before 1250, there are no medieval Latin translations of the Eudemian Ethics as a whole; indeed, the only other section of the text translated is E.E. 8.3.\r\n\r\nThe original sources of De Bona Fortuna were known to at least some of those who copied it in Latin, but the work itself is a direct translation from Greek. So, unless the translator also both excerpted and combined the two parts of the De Bona Fortuna himself, and showed no concern for the fact that the rest of the Eudemian Ethics was still untranslated, and perhaps even still unknown (which is highly unlikely), he must have used a Greek original of De Bona Fortuna in the form of a separate treatise composed of M.M. 2.8 and E.E. 8.2.\r\n\r\nThe title of the treatise, presumably, was the Greek equivalent of De Bona Fortuna, that is, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. We have no means of telling when it was assembled, but there is no reason why it should not be ancient and indeed have been available to Simplicius or (if Simplicius is quoting an anthology of some sort) to his source.\r\n\r\nE.E. 8.2 (1248A28) unemended, reads as follows: \u03a4\u03af \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2. Spengel added the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 after \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, following the reading et intellectu found in De Bona Fortuna. Thus, the Greek original of De Bona Fortuna read: \u03a4\u03af \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2. Thus, in \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, God is greater than mind.\r\n\r\nAdmittedly, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 did not say that God is \"beyond mind\" (\u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6), only that he is greater than mind. But in Platonic or Neopythagorean writings of late antiquity, these phrases are virtually interchangeable. The most striking evidence is from Plotinus, who uses \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 dozens of times and also gives the best examples of the One being \"greater (\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd)\" than mind (5.3.14.16-18, 5.3.16.38, 5.3.17.1-3).\r\n\r\nSimplicius thought he knew about an Aristotelian text On Prayer (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2). Let us suppose that he had direct or indirect access to a work originally called On Good Fortune (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2). The corruption of \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 to \u0395\u1f50\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 is easy. In this text, Simplicius found the remark that God is \"greater than mind.\" There is no reason to assume that Simplicius is quoting On Good Fortune verbatim. For Simplicius, as a Neoplatonist, to say that God is \"greater than mind\" is the same as to say that he is \"beyond (\u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1) mind.\"\r\n\r\nThe use of \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 in this way derives, of course, from Neoplatonic, Middle Platonic, and Neopythagorean interpretations of Plato's Republic 509B.\r\n\r\nLet us therefore posit the following sequence of events. A Greek text, including (but not necessarily restricted to) M.M. 2.8 and E.E. 8.2, is compiled and originally entitled \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. It comes to contain, at some point, an un-Aristotelian phrase (absent from the original text of the E.E. and based on a misinterpretation of that text) saying that God is \"greater than mind.\" The title of the work is at some stage corrupted: \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 becomes \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2.\r\n\r\nSimplicius either reads it under this title or, more likely, finds it so cited by an excerpter or commentator of Platonizing tendencies. Either Simplicius or the excerpter paraphrases \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 as \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6. Hence, our alleged fragment of Aristotle's work On Prayer, found in Simplicius, is really a corrupted fragment of \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, a work whose origin is lost but which reaches Simplicius, or becomes known to him, through the medium of a Platonizing tradition.\r\n\r\nThe date of the original compilation \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 remains unknown, but it must have been early enough for its title, in a mistaken form, to have found its way onto the lists of Aristotle's writings. The corruption of the title was probably achieved by a librarian's error long before the crucial phrase \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 (absent, as we have seen, from the Eudemian Ethics) was imported into the text itself. This can hardly have occurred before the revival of Neopythagoreanism, that is, before the second century B.C. It is not impossible that it was post-Plotinian. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7iwkew2wm2p3qeo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":303,"full_name":"Rist, John M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":858,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The American Journal of Philology","volume":"106","issue":"1","pages":"110-113"}},"sort":[1985]}

Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators, 1985
By: Mignucci, Mario, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1985
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule
Pages 57-97
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mignucci, Mario
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Aristotle’s conception of identity is too large a subject to be analyzed in a single article. I will try to discuss here just one of the many problems raised by his views on sameness. It is not, perhaps, the most stimulating question one could wish to see treated, but it is a question about logic, where I feel a little more at ease than among the complicated and obscure riddles of metaphysics. My subject will be Aristotle’s references to what is nowadays called ‘Leibniz’s Law’ (LL): if two objects x and y are the same, they both share all the same properties. A formal version of it could be: (1) x=y  ⟹  ∀F(F(x)  ⟺  F(y))x=y⟹∀F(F(x)⟺F(y)) It is perhaps worth remembering that (LL) must be distinguished from what is normally called the ‘principle of substitutivity’ (SP), according to which substitution of expressions that are said to be the same is truth-preserving. As has been shown, (LL) does not entail (SP), since there are counterexamples to (SP) that do not falsify (LL). Not only (SP), but also (LL) has been doubted by some modern logicians. The question is far from being settled, and it is perhaps of interest to examine how ancient logicians tried to manage this problem. First, I will consider Aristotle’s statements about (LL) and the analyses he gives of some supposed counterexamples to this principle. Secondly, the interpretations of his view among his Greek commentators will be taken into account, and their distance from the position of the master evaluated. As Professor Moraux has taught us, the study of the Aristotelian tradition often gives us the opportunity of understanding Aristotle’s own meaning better. [introduction p. 57-58]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"959","_score":null,"_source":{"id":959,"authors_free":[{"id":1439,"entry_id":959,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":259,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mignucci, Mario","free_first_name":"Mario","free_last_name":"Mignucci","norm_person":{"id":259,"first_name":"Mignucci","last_name":"Mario","full_name":"Mignucci, Mario","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1194188885","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2083,"entry_id":959,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators","main_title":{"title":"Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators"},"abstract":"Aristotle\u2019s conception of identity is too large a subject to be analyzed in a single article. I will try to discuss here just one of the many problems raised by his views on sameness. It is not, perhaps, the most stimulating question one could wish to see treated, but it is a question about logic, where I feel a little more at ease than among the complicated and obscure riddles of metaphysics. My subject will be Aristotle\u2019s references to what is nowadays called \u2018Leibniz\u2019s Law\u2019 (LL): if two objects x and y are the same, they both share all the same properties. A formal version of it could be:\r\n\r\n (1) x=y\u2005\u200a\u27f9\u2005\u200a\u2200F(F(x)\u2005\u200a\u27fa\u2005\u200aF(y))x=y\u27f9\u2200F(F(x)\u27faF(y))\r\n\r\nIt is perhaps worth remembering that (LL) must be distinguished from what is normally called the \u2018principle of substitutivity\u2019 (SP), according to which substitution of expressions that are said to be the same is truth-preserving. As has been shown, (LL) does not entail (SP), since there are counterexamples to (SP) that do not falsify (LL). Not only (SP), but also (LL) has been doubted by some modern logicians. The question is far from being settled, and it is perhaps of interest to examine how ancient logicians tried to manage this problem.\r\n\r\nFirst, I will consider Aristotle\u2019s statements about (LL) and the analyses he gives of some supposed counterexamples to this principle. Secondly, the interpretations of his view among his Greek commentators will be taken into account, and their distance from the position of the master evaluated. As Professor Moraux has taught us, the study of the Aristotelian tradition often gives us the opportunity of understanding Aristotle\u2019s own meaning better. [introduction p. 57-58]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VYZdFzrmNGSDth4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":259,"full_name":"Mignucci, Mario","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":959,"section_of":190,"pages":"57-97","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":190,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Plezia\/Verdenius\/P\u00e9pin1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1985]}

Theophrastus of Eresus. On his Life and Work, 1985
By: Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Huby, Pamela M. (Ed.), Long, Anthony A. (Ed.)
Title Theophrastus of Eresus. On his Life and Work
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1985
Publication Place New Brunswick
Publisher Transaction Books
Series Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities
Volume 2
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Fortenbaugh, William W. , Huby, Pamela M. , Long, Anthony A.
Translator(s)
This series in the field of classics grew out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking whose goal is to collect, edit, and comment on the fragments of Theophrastus, Greek philosopher, Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Contributions are by international experts, and each volume will have a particular focus. Volume I is devoted to Arius Didymus, court philosopher to Caesar Augustus and author of an extensive survey of Stoic and Peripatetic ethics. Volumes II and III will concentrate on Theophrastus and disseminate knowledge gained through work on the project. Volume IV will focus on Cicero and his knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy.

{"_index":"sire","_id":"284","_score":null,"_source":{"id":284,"authors_free":[{"id":2508,"entry_id":284,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2509,"entry_id":284,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":200,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Huby, Pamela M. ","free_first_name":"Pamela M.","free_last_name":"Huby","norm_person":{"id":200,"first_name":"Pamela M.","last_name":"Huby","full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120868962","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2510,"entry_id":284,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":515,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Long, Anthony A.","free_first_name":"Anthony A.","free_last_name":"Long","norm_person":{"id":515,"first_name":"Anthony A.","last_name":"Long","full_name":"Long, Anthony A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118959603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus of Eresus. On his Life and Work","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus of Eresus. On his Life and Work"},"abstract":"This series in the field of classics grew out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking whose goal is to collect, edit, and comment on the fragments of Theophrastus, Greek philosopher, Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Contributions are by international experts, and each volume will have a particular focus. Volume I is devoted to Arius Didymus, court philosopher to Caesar Augustus and author of an extensive survey of Stoic and Peripatetic ethics. Volumes II and III will concentrate on Theophrastus and disseminate knowledge gained through work on the project. Volume IV will focus on Cicero and his knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy.","btype":1,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pfDsepdfrPg1Fk8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":200,"full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":515,"full_name":"Long, Anthony A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":284,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Books","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1985]}

Aristotelica: Mélanges offerts à Marcel de Corte, 1985
By: Motte, André (Ed.), Rutten, Christian (Ed.)
Title Aristotelica: Mélanges offerts à Marcel de Corte
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1985
Publication Place Bruxelles – Liège
Publisher Éditions Ousia – Presses universitaires
Series Cahiers de philosophie ancienne
Volume 3
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Motte, André , Rutten, Christian
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"297","_score":null,"_source":{"id":297,"authors_free":[{"id":2114,"entry_id":297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":468,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Motte, Andre\u0301","free_first_name":"Andre\u0301","free_last_name":"Motte","norm_person":{"id":468,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Motte","full_name":"Motte, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124510663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2408,"entry_id":297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":469,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rutten, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Rutten","norm_person":{"id":469,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Rutten","full_name":"Rutten, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119515512","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelica: M\u00e9langes offerts \u00e0 Marcel de Corte","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelica: M\u00e9langes offerts \u00e0 Marcel de Corte"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1985","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vbTKdtbzJ5KxKIX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":468,"full_name":"Motte, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":469,"full_name":"Rutten, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":297,"pubplace":"Bruxelles \u2013 Lie\u0300ge","publisher":"E\u0301ditions Ousia \u2013 Presses universitaires","series":"Cahiers de philosophie ancienne","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1985]}

Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule, 1985
By: Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.), Marian Plezia (Ed.), W. J. Verdenius (Ed.), Jean Pépin (Ed.)
Title Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1985
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Volume 1
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen , Marian Plezia , W. J. Verdenius , Jean Pépin
Translator(s)
Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das Aristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enthält 31 Origi- nalbeiträge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil- den das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als möglich folgen wird. [Vorwort]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"190","_score":null,"_source":{"id":190,"authors_free":[{"id":1885,"entry_id":190,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2771,"entry_id":190,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Marian Plezia","free_first_name":"Marian","free_last_name":"Plezia","norm_person":null},{"id":2772,"entry_id":190,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"W. J. Verdenius","free_first_name":"W. J.","free_last_name":"Verdenius","norm_person":null},{"id":2773,"entry_id":190,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jean P\u00e9pin","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","main_title":{"title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule"},"abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","btype":4,"date":"1985","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1985]}

Porfirio e la fisica aristotelica, 1985
By: Romano, Francesco
Title Porfirio e la fisica aristotelica
Type Monograph
Language Italian
Date 1985
Publication Place Catania
Publisher Universita di Catania
Series Symbolon
Volume 3
Categories no categories
Author(s) Romano, Francesco
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Tra i commentari ad Aristotele quelli di Porfirio occupano senza dubbio un posto preminente. Francesco Romano presenta uno studio sulla figura e sull’opera di Porfirio di cui analizza l’attività commentaria e i termini dell’interesse specifico per Aristotele attraverso la ricostruzione dei frammenti e delle testimonianze relativi al Commentario alla Fisica. Per fare questo l’autore presenta la traduzione dell’opera chiarendo anche i rapporti di Porfirio con Eudemo, Nicola, Alessandro, Temistio e Simplicio. [a.a.]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"60","_score":null,"_source":{"id":60,"authors_free":[{"id":68,"entry_id":60,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":305,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Romano, Francesco","free_first_name":"Francesco","free_last_name":"Romano","norm_person":{"id":305,"first_name":"Francesco","last_name":"Romano","full_name":"Romano, Francesco","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028249454","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porfirio e la fisica aristotelica","main_title":{"title":"Porfirio e la fisica aristotelica"},"abstract":"Tra i commentari ad Aristotele quelli di Porfirio occupano senza dubbio un posto preminente.\r\nFrancesco Romano presenta uno studio sulla figura e sull\u2019opera di Porfirio di cui analizza l\u2019attivit\u00e0 commentaria e i termini dell\u2019interesse specifico per Aristotele attraverso la ricostruzione dei frammenti e delle testimonianze relativi al Commentario alla Fisica.\r\nPer fare questo l\u2019autore presenta la traduzione dell\u2019opera chiarendo anche i rapporti di Porfirio con Eudemo, Nicola, Alessandro, Temistio e Simplicio. [a.a.]","btype":1,"date":"1985","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tivi4S8KV7VK4gv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":305,"full_name":"Romano, Francesco","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":60,"pubplace":"Catania","publisher":"Universita di Catania","series":"Symbolon","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1985]}

The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern, 1985
By: Sorabji, Richard
Title The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern
Type Article
Language English
Date 1985
Journal Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series
Volume 86
Pages 1-22
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
I want to draw attention to two recurrent themes in the analysis of matter or body. The first theme is the idea that body is extension endowed with properties. To explain this, I shall go back as far as a famous text in Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book 7, Chapter 3. Aristotle is here discussing matter in a rather special sense. He does not mean by 'matter' what we might mean, namely, body. He means rather the subject of the properties in a body. The table in front of me may be made of wood. From one point of view, the wood might be thought of as a subject which carries the properties of the table—its rectilinearity, its hardness, its brownness. But according to one persuasive interpretation, Aristotle is looking for the most fundamental subject of properties in a body. He calls it the first subject (hupokeimenon proton, 1029a1-2). The wood of the table is made up of the four elements—earth, air, fire, and water—and these might be thought of as a more fundamental subject carrying the properties of the wood. But the most fundamental subject would be one which carried the properties of the four elements: hot, cold, fluid, and dry. This first subject is referred to by commentators as first or prime matter. [introduction p. 1]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"490","_score":null,"_source":{"id":490,"authors_free":[{"id":671,"entry_id":490,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern","main_title":{"title":"The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern"},"abstract":"I want to draw attention to two recurrent themes in the analysis of matter or body. The first theme is the idea that body is extension endowed with properties. To explain this, I shall go back as far as a famous text in Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book 7, Chapter 3.\r\n\r\nAristotle is here discussing matter in a rather special sense. He does not mean by 'matter' what we might mean, namely, body. He means rather the subject of the properties in a body. The table in front of me may be made of wood. From one point of view, the wood might be thought of as a subject which carries the properties of the table\u2014its rectilinearity, its hardness, its brownness.\r\n\r\nBut according to one persuasive interpretation, Aristotle is looking for the most fundamental subject of properties in a body. He calls it the first subject (hupokeimenon proton, 1029a1-2). The wood of the table is made up of the four elements\u2014earth, air, fire, and water\u2014and these might be thought of as a more fundamental subject carrying the properties of the wood.\r\n\r\nBut the most fundamental subject would be one which carried the properties of the four elements: hot, cold, fluid, and dry. This first subject is referred to by commentators as first or prime matter. [introduction p. 1]","btype":3,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Dk2wV9MF91LwVgZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":490,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series","volume":"86","issue":"","pages":"1-22"}},"sort":[1985]}

Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote, 1985
By: Moraux, Paul, Motte, André (Ed.), Rutten, Christian (Ed.)
Title Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1985
Published in Aristotelica: Mélanges offerts à Marcel de Corte
Pages 227-239
Categories no categories
Author(s) Moraux, Paul
Editor(s) Motte, André , Rutten, Christian
Translator(s)
Comme nous l’avons vu, il ne semble pas que Simplicius ait utilisé systématiquement la synopsis des livres V à VIII. Celle-ci a-t-elle laissé des traces ailleurs dans la littérature tardive ? Nous n’en avons aucune preuve formelle. Je voudrais pourtant attirer l’attention sur un passage du commentaire de Macrobe au Somnium Scipionis de Cicéron. Il s’agit d’une discussion de la thèse platonicienne selon laquelle l’âme est immortelle parce qu’elle est automotrice. Macrobe note qu’Aristote a contesté la légitimité de cette thèse et affirmé que l’âme ne peut se mouvoir elle-même et ne peut même subir aucun mouvement. Aristote montrait d’abord qu’il y a, dans la nature, quelque chose d’immobile. Ensuite, il cherchait à prouver que tout ce qui est mû l’est par quelque chose d’autre. Puis il établissait l’existence d’un premier moteur non mû. Contre Platon, il montrait alors que tout principe de mouvement est immobile, et que donc, si l’âme est principe de mouvement, elle doit être immobile. Pour illustrer ces diverses thèses d’Aristote, Macrobe reproduit, sous une forme assez squelettique, des arguments présentés par Aristote au livre VIII de la Physique. Il ne s’agit pas là de citations ou d’extraits littéraux, mais bien de résumés où la substance des développements d’Aristote est réduite à l’essentiel, donc d’une sorte d’epidromê ou de synopsis des passages utilisés. Or, nous savons que de tous les néoplatoniciens, Porphyre est l’un de ceux que Macrobe, qui dépend d’ordinaire de sources plus anciennes, utilise le plus volontiers et le plus fréquemment. Dans son ensemble, la critique moderne admet comme très probable l’hypothèse selon laquelle Macrobe aurait emprunté au traité de Porphyre Peri Psychês pros Boêthon les développements qu’il consacre au passage du Phèdre, traduit par Cicéron, sur l’automotricité et l’immortalité de l’âme. La question se pose donc de savoir si les objections d’Aristote ont été tirées de la même source, ou si Macrobe les a trouvées ailleurs, chez un péripatéticien, par exemple. Si l’on tient compte du fait que Porphyre connaissait très bien Aristote, dont il avait en partie commenté et en partie résumé la Physique, on pourra, ce me semble, fort bien imaginer que, dans son ouvrage sur l’âme, il s’était attaché non seulement à présenter les vues de Platon, mais aussi à les défendre contre les objections auxquelles elles pouvaient se heurter. Il est donc tout naturel que Porphyre se soit assez longuement étendu sur les difficultés que les théories aristotéliciennes du mouvement et du premier moteur suscitaient contre les arguments de Platon sur l’automotricité de l’âme. À cet effet, Porphyre avait exploité surtout le dernier livre de la Physique. Et comme il avait résumé sous la forme d’une synopsis les livres V à VIII, tout nous invite à croire qu’il avait largement utilisé cette synopsis en rédigeant son propre Peri Psychês. Mais pour le dire en toute franchise, cette hypothèse, tout alléchante qu’elle est, ne dépasse pas la vraisemblance. Nous ne disposons pas de fragments certains du résumé porphyrien du huitième livre de la Physique et, dès lors, nous ne sommes pas en mesure de prouver, par voie de comparaison, que les objections d’Aristote présentées par Macrobe remontent bien, en dernière analyse, à la synopsis qui a fait l’objet de la présente étude. [conclusion p. 237-239]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"494","_score":null,"_source":{"id":494,"authors_free":[{"id":681,"entry_id":494,"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}},{"id":2115,"entry_id":494,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":468,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Motte, Andre\u0301","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Motte","norm_person":{"id":468,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Motte","full_name":"Motte, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124510663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2409,"entry_id":494,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":469,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rutten, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Rutten","norm_person":{"id":469,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Rutten","full_name":"Rutten, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119515512","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote"},"abstract":"Comme nous l\u2019avons vu, il ne semble pas que Simplicius ait utilis\u00e9 syst\u00e9matiquement la synopsis des livres V \u00e0 VIII. Celle-ci a-t-elle laiss\u00e9 des traces ailleurs dans la litt\u00e9rature tardive ? Nous n\u2019en avons aucune preuve formelle. Je voudrais pourtant attirer l\u2019attention sur un passage du commentaire de Macrobe au Somnium Scipionis de Cic\u00e9ron. Il s\u2019agit d\u2019une discussion de la th\u00e8se platonicienne selon laquelle l\u2019\u00e2me est immortelle parce qu\u2019elle est automotrice.\r\n\r\nMacrobe note qu\u2019Aristote a contest\u00e9 la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de cette th\u00e8se et affirm\u00e9 que l\u2019\u00e2me ne peut se mouvoir elle-m\u00eame et ne peut m\u00eame subir aucun mouvement. Aristote montrait d\u2019abord qu\u2019il y a, dans la nature, quelque chose d\u2019immobile. Ensuite, il cherchait \u00e0 prouver que tout ce qui est m\u00fb l\u2019est par quelque chose d\u2019autre. Puis il \u00e9tablissait l\u2019existence d\u2019un premier moteur non m\u00fb. Contre Platon, il montrait alors que tout principe de mouvement est immobile, et que donc, si l\u2019\u00e2me est principe de mouvement, elle doit \u00eatre immobile.\r\n\r\nPour illustrer ces diverses th\u00e8ses d\u2019Aristote, Macrobe reproduit, sous une forme assez squelettique, des arguments pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par Aristote au livre VIII de la Physique. Il ne s\u2019agit pas l\u00e0 de citations ou d\u2019extraits litt\u00e9raux, mais bien de r\u00e9sum\u00e9s o\u00f9 la substance des d\u00e9veloppements d\u2019Aristote est r\u00e9duite \u00e0 l\u2019essentiel, donc d\u2019une sorte d\u2019epidrom\u00ea ou de synopsis des passages utilis\u00e9s. Or, nous savons que de tous les n\u00e9oplatoniciens, Porphyre est l\u2019un de ceux que Macrobe, qui d\u00e9pend d\u2019ordinaire de sources plus anciennes, utilise le plus volontiers et le plus fr\u00e9quemment.\r\n\r\nDans son ensemble, la critique moderne admet comme tr\u00e8s probable l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se selon laquelle Macrobe aurait emprunt\u00e9 au trait\u00e9 de Porphyre Peri Psych\u00eas pros Bo\u00eathon les d\u00e9veloppements qu\u2019il consacre au passage du Ph\u00e8dre, traduit par Cic\u00e9ron, sur l\u2019automotricit\u00e9 et l\u2019immortalit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e2me. La question se pose donc de savoir si les objections d\u2019Aristote ont \u00e9t\u00e9 tir\u00e9es de la m\u00eame source, ou si Macrobe les a trouv\u00e9es ailleurs, chez un p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien, par exemple.\r\n\r\nSi l\u2019on tient compte du fait que Porphyre connaissait tr\u00e8s bien Aristote, dont il avait en partie comment\u00e9 et en partie r\u00e9sum\u00e9 la Physique, on pourra, ce me semble, fort bien imaginer que, dans son ouvrage sur l\u2019\u00e2me, il s\u2019\u00e9tait attach\u00e9 non seulement \u00e0 pr\u00e9senter les vues de Platon, mais aussi \u00e0 les d\u00e9fendre contre les objections auxquelles elles pouvaient se heurter. Il est donc tout naturel que Porphyre se soit assez longuement \u00e9tendu sur les difficult\u00e9s que les th\u00e9ories aristot\u00e9liciennes du mouvement et du premier moteur suscitaient contre les arguments de Platon sur l\u2019automotricit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e2me.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 cet effet, Porphyre avait exploit\u00e9 surtout le dernier livre de la Physique. Et comme il avait r\u00e9sum\u00e9 sous la forme d\u2019une synopsis les livres V \u00e0 VIII, tout nous invite \u00e0 croire qu\u2019il avait largement utilis\u00e9 cette synopsis en r\u00e9digeant son propre Peri Psych\u00eas. Mais pour le dire en toute franchise, cette hypoth\u00e8se, tout all\u00e9chante qu\u2019elle est, ne d\u00e9passe pas la vraisemblance. Nous ne disposons pas de fragments certains du r\u00e9sum\u00e9 porphyrien du huiti\u00e8me livre de la Physique et, d\u00e8s lors, nous ne sommes pas en mesure de prouver, par voie de comparaison, que les objections d\u2019Aristote pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es par Macrobe remontent bien, en derni\u00e8re analyse, \u00e0 la synopsis qui a fait l\u2019objet de la pr\u00e9sente \u00e9tude. [conclusion p. 237-239]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HITY0gikmySrLA8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":468,"full_name":"Motte, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":469,"full_name":"Rutten, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":494,"section_of":297,"pages":"227-239","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":297,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristotelica: M\u00e9langes offerts \u00e0 Marcel de Corte","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Motte1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vbTKdtbzJ5KxKIX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":297,"pubplace":"Bruxelles \u2013 Lie\u0300ge","publisher":"E\u0301ditions Ousia \u2013 Presses universitaires","series":"Cahiers de philosophie ancienne","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1985]}

Aurore, Éros et Ananké autour des dieux Parménidiens (f. 12-f. 13), 1985
By: Frère, Jean
Title Aurore, Éros et Ananké autour des dieux Parménidiens (f. 12-f. 13)
Type Article
Language French
Date 1985
Journal Les Études philosophiques
Volume 4
Pages 459-470
Categories no categories
Author(s) Frère, Jean
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Deux textes de Platon dans Le Banquet et un d'Aristote dans La Métaphysique commentent ce passage de Parménide sur Éros. Dans Le Banquet, en 195a, Agathon dit : « Je déclare que c'est Éros le plus jeune des dieux... ; qu'inversement ces antiques divinités qu'énoncent sur les dieux Hésiode et Parménide appartiendraient à la Nécessité et non pas à l'Amour. » Et en 178a, Phèdre s'exprimait ainsi : « Quant à Parménide, voici ce qu'il dit de la génération : le premier de tous les dieux dont s'avisa [la Déesse], ce fut l'Amour. » Pour ce qui est d'Aristote, au livre A, chapitre 4, de La Métaphysique, examinant la thèse des penseurs qui, tel Anaxagore, firent du « la fois la cause de la beauté et la cause du mouvement des êtres », Aristote rapproche à son tour Hésiode et Parménide comme penseurs qui ont posé l'Amour ou le Désir pour principes des êtres ; Aristote cite alors le vers que citait Le Banquet en 178a, vers qui constitue le fragment 13 du poème de Parménide. Ainsi, les deux témoignages de Platon et d'Aristote s'accordent-ils : dans le panthéon parménidien, Anankè est l'origine ; en provient l'Amour, Éros, lequel domine les autres dieux. Dans le commentaire de La Physique d'Aristote, Simplicius apporte à son tour des textes et des indications concernant Anankè et Éros. C'est grâce à ces passages de Simplicius que les éditeurs de Parménide ont ordonné plusieurs fragments de la seconde partie du poème (f. 9 et suiv.). Cependant, l'ordonnance des fragments ici retenue par la plupart des éditeurs, si l'on y apporte quelque attention, semble loin de s'imposer. Relisant de près le texte de Simplicius, nous voudrions ici dégager conjointement plusieurs thèmes. D'abord, en ce qui concerne Simplicius, nous voudrions apporter des précisions sur sa technique de citation des fragments. À partir de là, nous pourrions envisager une nouvelle structuration des fragments portant sur Anankè et Éros. Enfin, nous pourrions ainsi essayer de mieux dégager certains aspects de la place du divin dans l'œuvre parménidienne. [introduction p. 460]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"593","_score":null,"_source":{"id":593,"authors_free":[{"id":844,"entry_id":593,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":101,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fr\u00e8re, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"Fr\u00e8re","norm_person":{"id":101,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"Fr\u00e8re","full_name":"Fr\u00e8re, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130051187","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aurore, \u00c9ros et Anank\u00e9 autour des dieux Parm\u00e9nidiens (f. 12-f. 13)","main_title":{"title":"Aurore, \u00c9ros et Anank\u00e9 autour des dieux Parm\u00e9nidiens (f. 12-f. 13)"},"abstract":"Deux textes de Platon dans Le Banquet et un d'Aristote dans La M\u00e9taphysique commentent ce passage de Parm\u00e9nide sur \u00c9ros. Dans Le Banquet, en 195a, Agathon dit : \u00ab Je d\u00e9clare que c'est \u00c9ros le plus jeune des dieux... ; qu'inversement ces antiques divinit\u00e9s qu'\u00e9noncent sur les dieux H\u00e9siode et Parm\u00e9nide appartiendraient \u00e0 la N\u00e9cessit\u00e9 et non pas \u00e0 l'Amour. \u00bb Et en 178a, Ph\u00e8dre s'exprimait ainsi : \u00ab Quant \u00e0 Parm\u00e9nide, voici ce qu'il dit de la g\u00e9n\u00e9ration : le premier de tous les dieux dont s'avisa [la D\u00e9esse], ce fut l'Amour. \u00bb\r\n\r\nPour ce qui est d'Aristote, au livre A, chapitre 4, de La M\u00e9taphysique, examinant la th\u00e8se des penseurs qui, tel Anaxagore, firent du \u00ab la fois la cause de la beaut\u00e9 et la cause du mouvement des \u00eatres \u00bb, Aristote rapproche \u00e0 son tour H\u00e9siode et Parm\u00e9nide comme penseurs qui ont pos\u00e9 l'Amour ou le D\u00e9sir pour principes des \u00eatres ; Aristote cite alors le vers que citait Le Banquet en 178a, vers qui constitue le fragment 13 du po\u00e8me de Parm\u00e9nide. Ainsi, les deux t\u00e9moignages de Platon et d'Aristote s'accordent-ils : dans le panth\u00e9on parm\u00e9nidien, Anank\u00e8 est l'origine ; en provient l'Amour, \u00c9ros, lequel domine les autres dieux.\r\n\r\nDans le commentaire de La Physique d'Aristote, Simplicius apporte \u00e0 son tour des textes et des indications concernant Anank\u00e8 et \u00c9ros. C'est gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 ces passages de Simplicius que les \u00e9diteurs de Parm\u00e9nide ont ordonn\u00e9 plusieurs fragments de la seconde partie du po\u00e8me (f. 9 et suiv.). Cependant, l'ordonnance des fragments ici retenue par la plupart des \u00e9diteurs, si l'on y apporte quelque attention, semble loin de s'imposer. Relisant de pr\u00e8s le texte de Simplicius, nous voudrions ici d\u00e9gager conjointement plusieurs th\u00e8mes.\r\n\r\nD'abord, en ce qui concerne Simplicius, nous voudrions apporter des pr\u00e9cisions sur sa technique de citation des fragments. \u00c0 partir de l\u00e0, nous pourrions envisager une nouvelle structuration des fragments portant sur Anank\u00e8 et \u00c9ros. Enfin, nous pourrions ainsi essayer de mieux d\u00e9gager certains aspects de la place du divin dans l'\u0153uvre parm\u00e9nidienne. [introduction p. 460]","btype":3,"date":"1985","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RFpfl1LBytLVPZJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":101,"full_name":"Fr\u00e8re, Jean","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":593,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":" 459-470"}},"sort":[1985]}

Levels of human thinking in Philoponus, 1985
By: Verbeke, Gérard, Laga, Carl (Ed.), Munitiz, Joseph A. (Ed.), Rompay, Lucas van (Ed.)
Title Levels of human thinking in Philoponus
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1985
Published in After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday
Pages 451-470
Categories no categories
Author(s) Verbeke, Gérard
Editor(s) Laga, Carl , Munitiz, Joseph A. , Rompay, Lucas van
Translator(s)
What is finally the meaning of Philoponus’s teaching on the levels of thought? Taking into account the previous considerations, we may conclude that this doctrine is intended to disclose the true nature of philosophical reflection as a direct and immediate intuition of the intelligible world. This disclosure is an internal one: each individual bears within himself, in the hidden abodes of his consciousness, a treasure of philosophical wisdom". In order to contemplate the highest truth, man should not leave himself, on the contrary he should come back and turn to himself, to his true self. Most people live outside them­selves in a permanent forgetfulness of their real nature: they hardly participate in philosophical wisdom, they only possess some common intuitions, which are a kind of trace or vestige of rational truth. They never come to the level of a direct contemplation of the intelligibles. In order to reach the supreme level of thinking man needs a moral preparation, which makes him able to overcome the influence of irrational movements; he also needs an intellectual training by means of discursive reasoning in order to free himself from the impact of senses and imagination. If these requirements are fulfilled, man be­ comes able to contemplate directly true reality in the internal world of his consciousness. [conclusion, p. 469]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1391","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1391,"authors_free":[{"id":2156,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2160,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":349,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Laga, Carl","free_first_name":"Carl","free_last_name":"Laga","norm_person":{"id":349,"first_name":"Carl","last_name":"Laga","full_name":"Laga, Carl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119278146","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2161,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":350,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","free_first_name":"Joseph A.","free_last_name":"Munitiz","norm_person":{"id":350,"first_name":"Joseph A.","last_name":"Munitiz","full_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/105468202X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2162,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":351,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","free_first_name":"Lucas","free_last_name":"Rompay van","norm_person":{"id":351,"first_name":"Lucas","last_name":"Rompay, van","full_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055081453","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Levels of human thinking in Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Levels of human thinking in Philoponus"},"abstract":"What is finally the meaning of Philoponus\u2019s teaching on the levels of thought? Taking into account the previous considerations, we may \r\nconclude that this doctrine is intended to disclose the true nature of philosophical reflection as a direct and immediate intuition of the \r\nintelligible world. This disclosure is an internal one: each individual bears within himself, in the hidden abodes of his consciousness, a treasure \r\nof philosophical wisdom\". In order to contemplate the highest truth, man should not leave himself, on the contrary he should come back \r\nand turn to himself, to his true self. Most people live outside them\u00adselves in a permanent forgetfulness of their real nature: they hardly \r\nparticipate in philosophical wisdom, they only possess some common intuitions, which are a kind of trace or vestige of rational truth. \r\nThey never come to the level of a direct contemplation of the intelligibles. In order to reach the supreme level of thinking man needs a moral preparation, which makes him able to overcome the influence of irrational movements; he also needs an intellectual training by means \r\nof discursive reasoning in order to free himself from the impact of senses and imagination. If these requirements are fulfilled, man be\u00ad\r\ncomes able to contemplate directly true reality in the internal world of his consciousness. [conclusion, p. 469]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PBqIyB5guZfHl6C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":349,"full_name":"Laga, Carl","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":350,"full_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":351,"full_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1391,"section_of":1392,"pages":"451-470","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1392,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Laga1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume in honour of Prof. P.H.L. Eggermont, Indologist and Classicist, is focused on North and Northwest India, and on the adjacent regions to the west, with special attention to the Hellenistic monarchies, the historical geography of India, the ancient trade routes, and the contacts between India, Greece and Rome. The contributions of this Festschrift provide a bulk of material, especially for those interested in relations between Classical and Oriental philological, historical, archaeological, and geographical sources. Besides, the volume contains a biography and a bibliography of Prof. Eggermont. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERNutaoLJTpirTN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1392,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Itgeverij Peeters Leuven","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1985]}

After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday, 1985
By: Laga, Carl (Ed.), Munitiz, Joseph A. (Ed.), Rompay, Lucas van (Ed.)
Title After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1985
Publication Place Leuven
Publisher Itgeverij Peeters Leuven
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Laga, Carl , Munitiz, Joseph A. , Rompay, Lucas van
Translator(s)
This volume in honour of Prof. P.H.L. Eggermont, Indologist and Classicist, is focused on North and Northwest India, and on the adjacent regions to the west, with special attention to the Hellenistic monarchies, the historical geography of India, the ancient trade routes, and the contacts between India, Greece and Rome. The contributions of this Festschrift provide a bulk of material, especially for those interested in relations between Classical and Oriental philological, historical, archaeological, and geographical sources. Besides, the volume contains a biography and a bibliography of Prof. Eggermont. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1392","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1392,"authors_free":[{"id":2157,"entry_id":1392,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":349,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Laga, Carl","free_first_name":"Carl","free_last_name":"Laga","norm_person":{"id":349,"first_name":"Carl","last_name":"Laga","full_name":"Laga, Carl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119278146","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2158,"entry_id":1392,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":350,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","free_first_name":"Joseph A.","free_last_name":"Munitiz","norm_person":{"id":350,"first_name":"Joseph A.","last_name":"Munitiz","full_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/105468202X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2159,"entry_id":1392,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":351,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","free_first_name":"Lucas","free_last_name":"Rompay van","norm_person":{"id":351,"first_name":"Lucas","last_name":"Rompay, van","full_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055081453","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday","main_title":{"title":"After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday"},"abstract":"This volume in honour of Prof. P.H.L. Eggermont, Indologist and Classicist, is focused on North and Northwest India, and on the adjacent regions to the west, with special attention to the Hellenistic monarchies, the historical geography of India, the ancient trade routes, and the contacts between India, Greece and Rome. The contributions of this Festschrift provide a bulk of material, especially for those interested in relations between Classical and Oriental philological, historical, archaeological, and geographical sources. Besides, the volume contains a biography and a bibliography of Prof. Eggermont. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1985","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GSkAPkgJ17bDZ3g","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":349,"full_name":"Laga, Carl","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":350,"full_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":351,"full_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1392,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Itgeverij Peeters Leuven","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1985]}

Empedocles B 96 (462 Bollack) and the Poetry of Adhesion, 1984
By: Sider, David
Title Empedocles B 96 (462 Bollack) and the Poetry of Adhesion
Type Article
Language English
Date 1984
Journal Mnemosyne, Fourth Series
Volume 37
Issue 1-2
Pages 14-24
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sider, David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Notes on Empedocles B 96

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1018","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1018,"authors_free":[{"id":1534,"entry_id":1018,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":320,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sider, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Sider","norm_person":{"id":320,"first_name":"David","last_name":"Sider","full_name":"Sider, David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1129478610","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles B 96 (462 Bollack) and the Poetry of Adhesion","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles B 96 (462 Bollack) and the Poetry of Adhesion"},"abstract":"Notes on Empedocles B 96","btype":3,"date":"1984","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gIM2YVFw7r7XnSS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":320,"full_name":"Sider, David","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1018,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"37","issue":"1-2","pages":"14-24"}},"sort":[1984]}

(Neo-) Platonica, 1984
By: Steel, Carlos
Title (Neo-) Platonica
Type Article
Language Dutch
Date 1984
Journal Tijdschrift voor Filosofie
Volume 46
Issue 2
Pages 319-330
Categories no categories
Author(s) Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Filosofie is ons vooral in de vorm van teksten toegankelijk. Wie filosofie wil studeren, zal onvermijdelijk teksten moeten bestuderen en zal het resultaat van zijn eigen onderzoek weer in de vorm van teksten produceren. Wel heeft de filosofie van oudsher ook met de mogelijkheid rekening gehouden dat men inzichten kan verwerven die niet discursief uitgedrukt kunnen worden, die niet „textfähig“ zijn; maar toch is de filosofie weinig beïnvloed geworden door deze principiële mogelijkheid. Tenslotte kan men weer reflecteren en schrijven over deze niet-tekstmatige inzichten, zodat het erop lijkt dat men nooit uit de toverban van de tekst geraken kan. Niemand zal eraan denken het voordeel prijs te geven dat de filosofie heeft door zich aan teksten te binden en zo haar inzichten te objectiveren. Maar toch is het bedenkelijk dat men de binding van filosofisch inzicht aan de tekst als vanzelfsprekend ziet. Zo wordt ook niet meer duidelijk wat de „zaak“ is waarop de filosofische tekst betrekking heeft. Is er wel een „zaak-los-van-de-tekst“? Het is bekend dat Plato tegenover het fenomeen „tekst“ bewust afstand heeft genomen. Men kan hem zeker niet verwijten dat hij een naïef vertrouwen heeft in de tekst als medium van filosofisch inzicht: waar het in de filosofie eigenlijk om gaat is niet in tekst uit te drukken. Al is hij zelf meer dan wie ook tekst-kunstenaar, hij blijft zich bewust van de grenzen van de tekst. Wie uit Plato’s dialogen een doctrine construeert, een systeem van uitspraken over „wat het geval is“, verliest deze reserve ten opzichte van de tekst en reduceert de vele „vormen van kennis“ tot objectief „propositioneel“ kennen. Dit is de invalshoek van waaruit Wolfgang Wieland, vooral bekend wegens zijn originele studie over Aristoteles’ Physica, zijn Plato-boek geschreven heeft: Platon und die Formen des Wissens. Het boek bevat drie delen. Het eerste is gewijd aan Plato’s verhouding tot de geschreven tekst. Uitgaande van de bekende passage in de Phaidros onderzoekt Wieland waarom Plato zo kritisch is ten opzichte van het schrift. Plato verzet zich tegen elke poging om het weten te objectiveren alsof men in de tekst over inzicht als over een stuk bezit zou kunnen beschikken. Elke formulering in taal blijft werktuig, iets voorlopigs. Het „gebruiksweten“ dat in de omgang met de dingen tot stand komt, heeft voorrang op het weten dat in proposities is uitgedrukt. Hier staan we meteen voor het centrale thema van Wielands boek. Het is echter de vraag of dit bij Plato wel zo centraal is. Bij Plato gaat het vooreerst om kritiek op het schrift, en niet op het propositionele weten als zodanig. Vanuit de schriftkritiek kan men ook de dialoog als medium van filosofisch denken begrijpen. Indien men ondanks alle reserves toch niet aan tekst verzaken kan, dan biedt de dialoogvorm een uitweg. Eén van de tekorten van de tekst heeft namelijk te maken met het ontbreken van een reële context van het woord. De dialoog brengt deze context op dramatisch-fictieve wijze tot stand. De dialoog is geen didactisch hulpmiddel, geen inkleding van een leer. De uitspraken blijven er als „werktuigen“ in de gespreksactie fungeren. Vanuit de schriftkritiek kan men ook het statuut van de mythe binnen de tekst begrijpen, het metaforische karakter van vele passages, het gebruik van de ironie. Tenslotte wijst Wieland in § 5 op het belang van de fictieve chronologie bij het beoordelen van een dialoog. Men kan namelijk, uitgaande van de dramatische situatie van de verschillende dialogen, een fictieve chronologie opstellen: zo zal niemand betwisten dat de Parmenides later is geschreven dan de Phaidon (reële chronologie), maar in de fictieve chronologie komt de Parmenides veel eerder, omdat hierin de jonge Socrates optreedt, terwijl in de Phaidon Socrates voor de dood staat. In de interpretatie heeft men te weinig rekening gehouden met de plaats van een dialoog in deze fictieve chronologie. [introduction p. 319-320] Übersetzung: Philosophie ist uns vor allem in der Form von Texten zugänglich. Wer Philosophie studieren will, muss zwangsläufig Texte studieren und wird die Ergebnisse seiner eigenen Forschung wiederum in Form von Texten präsentieren. Die Philosophie hat jedoch seit jeher auch die Möglichkeit berücksichtigt, dass Erkenntnisse gewonnen werden können, die nicht diskursiv ausgedrückt werden können, die also nicht „textfähig“ sind. Dennoch hat diese prinzipielle Möglichkeit die Philosophie kaum beeinflusst. Letztendlich kann man auch über diese nicht-textlichen Erkenntnisse reflektieren und schreiben, sodass es scheint, als könne man niemals aus dem Bann des Textes entkommen. Niemand wird daran denken, den Vorteil aufzugeben, den die Philosophie dadurch hat, sich an Texte zu binden und ihre Erkenntnisse so zu objektivieren. Doch es ist bedenklich, dass man die Bindung philosophischer Erkenntnis an den Text als selbstverständlich betrachtet. Dadurch wird auch unklar, was die „Sache“ ist, auf die sich der philosophische Text bezieht. Gibt es überhaupt eine „Sache außerhalb des Textes“? Es ist bekannt, dass Platon dem Phänomen „Text“ bewusst distanziert gegenüberstand. Man kann ihm sicher nicht vorwerfen, ein naives Vertrauen in den Text als Medium philosophischer Erkenntnis gehabt zu haben: Worauf es in der Philosophie eigentlich ankommt, lässt sich nicht in Texten ausdrücken. Auch wenn er selbst mehr als jeder andere ein Künstler des Textes war, war er sich stets der Grenzen des Textes bewusst. Wer aus Platons Dialogen eine Doktrin konstruiert, ein System von Aussagen über „das, was der Fall ist“, verliert diese kritische Distanz zum Text und reduziert die vielen „Formen des Wissens“ auf ein objektives „propositionales“ Wissen. Dies ist die Perspektive, aus der Wolfgang Wieland, vor allem bekannt für seine originelle Studie über Aristoteles’ Physik, sein Platon-Buch Platon und die Formen des Wissens geschrieben hat. Das Buch besteht aus drei Teilen. Der erste Teil widmet sich Platons Verhältnis zum geschriebenen Text. Ausgehend von der bekannten Passage im Phaidros untersucht Wieland, warum Platon dem Schreiben so kritisch gegenüberstand. Platon wendet sich gegen jede Versuchung, Wissen zu objektivieren, als könne man in einem Text über Erkenntnisse verfügen wie über einen Besitz. Jede Formulierung in Sprache bleibt ein Werkzeug, etwas Vorläufiges. Das „Gebrauchswissen“, das im Umgang mit den Dingen entsteht, hat Vorrang vor dem Wissen, das in Propositionen ausgedrückt ist. Hier begegnen wir dem zentralen Thema von Wielands Buch. Es bleibt jedoch die Frage, ob dies bei Platon tatsächlich zentral ist. Bei Platon geht es zunächst um Kritik am Schreiben und nicht um Kritik am propositionalen Wissen als solches. Aus der Schriftkritik lässt sich auch die Dialogform als Medium des philosophischen Denkens verstehen. Wenn man trotz aller Vorbehalte nicht auf den Text verzichten kann, bietet die Dialogform einen Ausweg. Ein Mangel des Textes liegt nämlich im Fehlen eines realen Kontexts des Wortes. Der Dialog stellt diesen Kontext auf dramatisch-fiktive Weise her. Der Dialog ist kein didaktisches Hilfsmittel, keine Verpackung einer Lehre. Die Aussagen fungieren in der Dialoghandlung weiterhin als „Werkzeuge“. Aus der Schriftkritik lässt sich auch der Status des Mythos im Text verstehen, ebenso wie der metaphorische Charakter vieler Passagen und die Verwendung von Ironie. Schließlich weist Wieland in § 5 auf die Bedeutung der fiktiven Chronologie für die Beurteilung eines Dialogs hin. Ausgehend von der dramatischen Situation der verschiedenen Dialoge lässt sich eine fiktive Chronologie erstellen: Niemand wird bestreiten, dass der Parmenides später geschrieben wurde als der Phaidon (reale Chronologie), aber in der fiktiven Chronologie kommt der Parmenides viel früher, da dort der junge Sokrates auftritt, während im Phaidon Sokrates vor seinem Tod steht. In der Interpretation hat man die Stellung eines Dialogs in dieser fiktiven Chronologie bisher zu wenig berücksichtigt.

{"_index":"sire","_id":"845","_score":null,"_source":{"id":845,"authors_free":[{"id":1249,"entry_id":845,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"(Neo-) Platonica","main_title":{"title":"(Neo-) Platonica"},"abstract":"Filosofie is ons vooral in de vorm van teksten toegankelijk. Wie filosofie wil studeren, zal onvermijdelijk teksten moeten bestuderen en zal het resultaat van zijn eigen onderzoek weer in de vorm van teksten produceren. Wel heeft de filosofie van oudsher ook met de mogelijkheid rekening gehouden dat men inzichten kan verwerven die niet discursief uitgedrukt kunnen worden, die niet \u201etextf\u00e4hig\u201c zijn; maar toch is de filosofie weinig be\u00efnvloed geworden door deze principi\u00eble mogelijkheid. Tenslotte kan men weer reflecteren en schrijven over deze niet-tekstmatige inzichten, zodat het erop lijkt dat men nooit uit de toverban van de tekst geraken kan. Niemand zal eraan denken het voordeel prijs te geven dat de filosofie heeft door zich aan teksten te binden en zo haar inzichten te objectiveren. Maar toch is het bedenkelijk dat men de binding van filosofisch inzicht aan de tekst als vanzelfsprekend ziet. Zo wordt ook niet meer duidelijk wat de \u201ezaak\u201c is waarop de filosofische tekst betrekking heeft. Is er wel een \u201ezaak-los-van-de-tekst\u201c? Het is bekend dat Plato tegenover het fenomeen \u201etekst\u201c bewust afstand heeft genomen. Men kan hem zeker niet verwijten dat hij een na\u00efef vertrouwen heeft in de tekst als medium van filosofisch inzicht: waar het in de filosofie eigenlijk om gaat is niet in tekst uit te drukken. Al is hij zelf meer dan wie ook tekst-kunstenaar, hij blijft zich bewust van de grenzen van de tekst. Wie uit Plato\u2019s dialogen een doctrine construeert, een systeem van uitspraken over \u201ewat het geval is\u201c, verliest deze reserve ten opzichte van de tekst en reduceert de vele \u201evormen van kennis\u201c tot objectief \u201epropositioneel\u201c kennen.\r\n\r\nDit is de invalshoek van waaruit Wolfgang Wieland, vooral bekend wegens zijn originele studie over Aristoteles\u2019 Physica, zijn Plato-boek geschreven heeft: Platon und die Formen des Wissens. Het boek bevat drie delen. Het eerste is gewijd aan Plato\u2019s verhouding tot de geschreven tekst. Uitgaande van de bekende passage in de Phaidros onderzoekt Wieland waarom Plato zo kritisch is ten opzichte van het schrift. Plato verzet zich tegen elke poging om het weten te objectiveren alsof men in de tekst over inzicht als over een stuk bezit zou kunnen beschikken. Elke formulering in taal blijft werktuig, iets voorlopigs. Het \u201egebruiksweten\u201c dat in de omgang met de dingen tot stand komt, heeft voorrang op het weten dat in proposities is uitgedrukt. Hier staan we meteen voor het centrale thema van Wielands boek. Het is echter de vraag of dit bij Plato wel zo centraal is. Bij Plato gaat het vooreerst om kritiek op het schrift, en niet op het propositionele weten als zodanig.\r\n\r\nVanuit de schriftkritiek kan men ook de dialoog als medium van filosofisch denken begrijpen. Indien men ondanks alle reserves toch niet aan tekst verzaken kan, dan biedt de dialoogvorm een uitweg. E\u00e9n van de tekorten van de tekst heeft namelijk te maken met het ontbreken van een re\u00eble context van het woord. De dialoog brengt deze context op dramatisch-fictieve wijze tot stand. De dialoog is geen didactisch hulpmiddel, geen inkleding van een leer. De uitspraken blijven er als \u201ewerktuigen\u201c in de gespreksactie fungeren. Vanuit de schriftkritiek kan men ook het statuut van de mythe binnen de tekst begrijpen, het metaforische karakter van vele passages, het gebruik van de ironie. Tenslotte wijst Wieland in \u00a7 5 op het belang van de fictieve chronologie bij het beoordelen van een dialoog. Men kan namelijk, uitgaande van de dramatische situatie van de verschillende dialogen, een fictieve chronologie opstellen: zo zal niemand betwisten dat de Parmenides later is geschreven dan de Phaidon (re\u00eble chronologie), maar in de fictieve chronologie komt de Parmenides veel eerder, omdat hierin de jonge Socrates optreedt, terwijl in de Phaidon Socrates voor de dood staat. In de interpretatie heeft men te weinig rekening gehouden met de plaats van een dialoog in deze fictieve chronologie.\r\n[introduction p. 319-320] \u00dcbersetzung: Philosophie ist uns vor allem in der Form von Texten zug\u00e4nglich. Wer Philosophie studieren will, muss zwangsl\u00e4ufig Texte studieren und wird die Ergebnisse seiner eigenen Forschung wiederum in Form von Texten pr\u00e4sentieren. Die Philosophie hat jedoch seit jeher auch die M\u00f6glichkeit ber\u00fccksichtigt, dass Erkenntnisse gewonnen werden k\u00f6nnen, die nicht diskursiv ausgedr\u00fcckt werden k\u00f6nnen, die also nicht \u201etextf\u00e4hig\u201c sind. Dennoch hat diese prinzipielle M\u00f6glichkeit die Philosophie kaum beeinflusst. Letztendlich kann man auch \u00fcber diese nicht-textlichen Erkenntnisse reflektieren und schreiben, sodass es scheint, als k\u00f6nne man niemals aus dem Bann des Textes entkommen. Niemand wird daran denken, den Vorteil aufzugeben, den die Philosophie dadurch hat, sich an Texte zu binden und ihre Erkenntnisse so zu objektivieren. Doch es ist bedenklich, dass man die Bindung philosophischer Erkenntnis an den Text als selbstverst\u00e4ndlich betrachtet. Dadurch wird auch unklar, was die \u201eSache\u201c ist, auf die sich der philosophische Text bezieht. Gibt es \u00fcberhaupt eine \u201eSache au\u00dferhalb des Textes\u201c?\r\n\r\nEs ist bekannt, dass Platon dem Ph\u00e4nomen \u201eText\u201c bewusst distanziert gegen\u00fcberstand. Man kann ihm sicher nicht vorwerfen, ein naives Vertrauen in den Text als Medium philosophischer Erkenntnis gehabt zu haben: Worauf es in der Philosophie eigentlich ankommt, l\u00e4sst sich nicht in Texten ausdr\u00fccken. Auch wenn er selbst mehr als jeder andere ein K\u00fcnstler des Textes war, war er sich stets der Grenzen des Textes bewusst. Wer aus Platons Dialogen eine Doktrin konstruiert, ein System von Aussagen \u00fcber \u201edas, was der Fall ist\u201c, verliert diese kritische Distanz zum Text und reduziert die vielen \u201eFormen des Wissens\u201c auf ein objektives \u201epropositionales\u201c Wissen.\r\n\r\nDies ist die Perspektive, aus der Wolfgang Wieland, vor allem bekannt f\u00fcr seine originelle Studie \u00fcber Aristoteles\u2019 Physik, sein Platon-Buch Platon und die Formen des Wissens geschrieben hat. Das Buch besteht aus drei Teilen. Der erste Teil widmet sich Platons Verh\u00e4ltnis zum geschriebenen Text. Ausgehend von der bekannten Passage im Phaidros untersucht Wieland, warum Platon dem Schreiben so kritisch gegen\u00fcberstand. Platon wendet sich gegen jede Versuchung, Wissen zu objektivieren, als k\u00f6nne man in einem Text \u00fcber Erkenntnisse verf\u00fcgen wie \u00fcber einen Besitz. Jede Formulierung in Sprache bleibt ein Werkzeug, etwas Vorl\u00e4ufiges. Das \u201eGebrauchswissen\u201c, das im Umgang mit den Dingen entsteht, hat Vorrang vor dem Wissen, das in Propositionen ausgedr\u00fcckt ist. Hier begegnen wir dem zentralen Thema von Wielands Buch. Es bleibt jedoch die Frage, ob dies bei Platon tats\u00e4chlich zentral ist. Bei Platon geht es zun\u00e4chst um Kritik am Schreiben und nicht um Kritik am propositionalen Wissen als solches.\r\n\r\nAus der Schriftkritik l\u00e4sst sich auch die Dialogform als Medium des philosophischen Denkens verstehen. Wenn man trotz aller Vorbehalte nicht auf den Text verzichten kann, bietet die Dialogform einen Ausweg. Ein Mangel des Textes liegt n\u00e4mlich im Fehlen eines realen Kontexts des Wortes. Der Dialog stellt diesen Kontext auf dramatisch-fiktive Weise her. Der Dialog ist kein didaktisches Hilfsmittel, keine Verpackung einer Lehre. Die Aussagen fungieren in der Dialoghandlung weiterhin als \u201eWerkzeuge\u201c. Aus der Schriftkritik l\u00e4sst sich auch der Status des Mythos im Text verstehen, ebenso wie der metaphorische Charakter vieler Passagen und die Verwendung von Ironie. Schlie\u00dflich weist Wieland in \u00a7 5 auf die Bedeutung der fiktiven Chronologie f\u00fcr die Beurteilung eines Dialogs hin. Ausgehend von der dramatischen Situation der verschiedenen Dialoge l\u00e4sst sich eine fiktive Chronologie erstellen: Niemand wird bestreiten, dass der Parmenides sp\u00e4ter geschrieben wurde als der Phaidon (reale Chronologie), aber in der fiktiven Chronologie kommt der Parmenides viel fr\u00fcher, da dort der junge Sokrates auftritt, w\u00e4hrend im Phaidon Sokrates vor seinem Tod steht. In der Interpretation hat man die Stellung eines Dialogs in dieser fiktiven Chronologie bisher zu wenig ber\u00fccksichtigt.","btype":3,"date":"1984","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/H1e3T5fZsfMIh5O","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":845,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Tijdschrift voor Filosofie","volume":"46","issue":"2","pages":"319-330"}},"sort":[1984]}

Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 2: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh. n.Chr., 1984
By: Moraux, Paul
Title Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 2: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh. n.Chr.
Type Monograph
Language German
Date 1984
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Peripatoi
Volume 6
Categories no categories
Author(s) Moraux, Paul
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Durch seine Tendenzen und seine Leistungen unterscheidet sich der Aristotelismus der beiden ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte kaum von dem der zweiten Hälfte des ersten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. In der hier behandelten frühen Kaiserzeit lassen sich keine neuen Merkmale beobachten, die eine scharfe Trennung zwischen diesen beiden Jahrhunderten und dem vorhergehenden rechtfertigten. Vielmehr erscheint die Periode von Andronikos bis einschließlich Alexander von Aphrodisias als relativ einheitlich in ihrer Interpretation des Aristoteles. Sie unterscheidet sich vom neuplatonischen Aristotelesverständnis hauptsächlich dadurch, dass sie sich noch nicht zur grundsätzlichen Identität zwischen Aristoteles und Platon bekennt. Nur die Menge des Materials, das es zu untersuchen galt, hat mich gezwungen, die Darstellung dieser ganzen Periode auf drei Bände zu verteilen. [...] In der zweiten Hälfte dieser Arbeit wollen wir uns mit dem Aristotelismus in der Sicht anderer Schulen befassen. Die Entlehnungen aus dem Aristotelismus bei einigen Mittelplatonikern, ferner die gegen Aristoteles gerichtete Kritik und schließlich die Auseinandersetzungen von Nicht-Aristotelikern mit Schriften des Stagiriten dürfen in einer Untersuchung über den Aristotelismus in den ersten beiden nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten nicht außer Acht gelassen werden. Auch dort wird sich zeigen, wie in der Einleitung zum zweiten Buch ausführlicher dargelegt wird, dass etwa bei Platonikern das grundsätzliche Bekenntnis zum Platonismus oft Hand in Hand geht mit einem tatsächlichen Eklektizismus. Die Deutung Platons unter Benutzung typisch aristotelischer Errungenschaften erschien also als durchaus legitim. [preface]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"65","_score":null,"_source":{"id":65,"authors_free":[{"id":73,"entry_id":65,"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":"Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 2: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh. n.Chr.","main_title":{"title":"Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 2: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh. n.Chr."},"abstract":"Durch seine Tendenzen und seine Leistungen unterscheidet sich der Aristotelismus der beiden ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte kaum von dem der zweiten H\u00e4lfte des ersten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. In der hier behandelten fr\u00fchen Kaiserzeit lassen sich keine neuen Merkmale beobachten, die eine scharfe Trennung zwischen diesen beiden Jahrhunderten und dem vorhergehenden rechtfertigten. Vielmehr erscheint die Periode von Andronikos bis einschlie\u00dflich Alexander von Aphrodisias als relativ einheitlich in ihrer Interpretation des Aristoteles. Sie unterscheidet sich vom neuplatonischen Aristotelesverst\u00e4ndnis haupts\u00e4chlich dadurch, dass sie sich noch nicht zur grunds\u00e4tzlichen Identit\u00e4t zwischen Aristoteles und Platon bekennt. Nur die Menge des Materials, das es zu untersuchen galt, hat mich gezwungen, die Darstellung dieser ganzen Periode auf drei B\u00e4nde zu verteilen. [...]\r\nIn der zweiten H\u00e4lfte dieser Arbeit wollen wir uns mit dem Aristotelismus in der Sicht anderer Schulen befassen. Die Entlehnungen aus dem Aristotelismus bei einigen Mittelplatonikern, ferner die gegen Aristoteles gerichtete Kritik und schlie\u00dflich die Auseinandersetzungen von Nicht-Aristotelikern mit Schriften des Stagiriten d\u00fcrfen in einer Untersuchung \u00fcber den Aristotelismus in den ersten beiden nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten nicht au\u00dfer Acht gelassen werden. Auch dort wird sich zeigen, wie in der Einleitung zum zweiten Buch ausf\u00fchrlicher dargelegt wird, dass etwa bei Platonikern das grunds\u00e4tzliche Bekenntnis zum Platonismus oft Hand in Hand geht mit einem tats\u00e4chlichen Eklektizismus. Die Deutung Platons unter Benutzung typisch aristotelischer Errungenschaften erschien also als durchaus legitim. [preface]","btype":1,"date":"1984","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nSxL9S7Z1RoD9mZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":65,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi","volume":"6","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1984]}

Conférence de M. Philippe Hoffmann: Sens et dénomination. Homonymie, analogie, métaphore selon le commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégories d'Aristote, 1984
By: Hoffmann, Philippe
Title Conférence de M. Philippe Hoffmann: Sens et dénomination. Homonymie, analogie, métaphore selon le commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégories d'Aristote
Type Article
Language French
Date 1984
Journal École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences religieuses. Annuaire
Volume 93
Pages 343-356
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Notre lecture du Commentaire de Simplicius s'est organisée selon plusieurs fils directeurs. Nous avons examiné, tout d'abord, les méthodes mêmes de l'exégèse : Simplicius lit le texte d'Aristote mot à mot (kata tên lexin), en scrutant au besoin tous les sens possibles d'un même mot ; l'explication proprement doctrinale procède en partie par des citations (ou paraphrases) d'auteurs antérieurs : Porphyre (Commentaire par questions et réponses, et surtout Commentaire à Gédalios), Jamblique et Syrianus. Nous avons aussi tenté de dégager les traits proprement néoplatoniciens du commentaire : ainsi, à propos du couple « nom-définition », dont l'interprétation ne peut se comprendre que dans la perspective plus générale du système néoplatonicien. Il apparaît en outre que la condition de possibilité de l'homonymie, et de son contraire la polyonymie, est le caractère « conventionnel » (thesei et non phusei) du langage : il fallait donc situer la réflexion néoplatonicienne dans le cadre des discussions traditionnelles sur l'origine du langage. D'autres questions se posaient encore : quelle est, au fond, la justification et l'utilité d'un tel exposé préliminaire dans un ouvrage consacré aux catégories ? La doctrine des homonymes, synonymes et paronymes exprime-t-elle des propriétés des réalités, ou des noms (onomata) ? Quelle est la spécificité de la recherche philosophique d'Aristote par rapport à la grammaire, ou à l'étude littéraire du langage, qui relève de la Rhétorique ? Le commentaire de Simplicius cite le témoignage de Boèthos de Sidon sur la doctrine de Speusippe, qui, à la différence d'Aristote, divise les onomata : ce fut l'occasion d'une mise au point portant à la fois sur les théories antiques de l'homonymie et de la synonymie, et sur l'importance de ces commentaires comme sources de nos connaissances en matière de philosophie antique. [introduction p. 344-345]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"507","_score":null,"_source":{"id":507,"authors_free":[{"id":701,"entry_id":507,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Conf\u00e9rence de M. Philippe Hoffmann: Sens et d\u00e9nomination. Homonymie, analogie, m\u00e9taphore selon le commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Conf\u00e9rence de M. Philippe Hoffmann: Sens et d\u00e9nomination. Homonymie, analogie, m\u00e9taphore selon le commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote"},"abstract":"Notre lecture du Commentaire de Simplicius s'est organis\u00e9e selon plusieurs fils directeurs. Nous avons examin\u00e9, tout d'abord, les m\u00e9thodes m\u00eames de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se : Simplicius lit le texte d'Aristote mot \u00e0 mot (kata t\u00ean lexin), en scrutant au besoin tous les sens possibles d'un m\u00eame mot ; l'explication proprement doctrinale proc\u00e8de en partie par des citations (ou paraphrases) d'auteurs ant\u00e9rieurs : Porphyre (Commentaire par questions et r\u00e9ponses, et surtout Commentaire \u00e0 G\u00e9dalios), Jamblique et Syrianus.\r\n\r\nNous avons aussi tent\u00e9 de d\u00e9gager les traits proprement n\u00e9oplatoniciens du commentaire : ainsi, \u00e0 propos du couple \u00ab nom-d\u00e9finition \u00bb, dont l'interpr\u00e9tation ne peut se comprendre que dans la perspective plus g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du syst\u00e8me n\u00e9oplatonicien. Il appara\u00eet en outre que la condition de possibilit\u00e9 de l'homonymie, et de son contraire la polyonymie, est le caract\u00e8re \u00ab conventionnel \u00bb (thesei et non phusei) du langage : il fallait donc situer la r\u00e9flexion n\u00e9oplatonicienne dans le cadre des discussions traditionnelles sur l'origine du langage.\r\n\r\nD'autres questions se posaient encore : quelle est, au fond, la justification et l'utilit\u00e9 d'un tel expos\u00e9 pr\u00e9liminaire dans un ouvrage consacr\u00e9 aux cat\u00e9gories ? La doctrine des homonymes, synonymes et paronymes exprime-t-elle des propri\u00e9t\u00e9s des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s, ou des noms (onomata) ? Quelle est la sp\u00e9cificit\u00e9 de la recherche philosophique d'Aristote par rapport \u00e0 la grammaire, ou \u00e0 l'\u00e9tude litt\u00e9raire du langage, qui rel\u00e8ve de la Rh\u00e9torique ?\r\n\r\nLe commentaire de Simplicius cite le t\u00e9moignage de Bo\u00e8thos de Sidon sur la doctrine de Speusippe, qui, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence d'Aristote, divise les onomata : ce fut l'occasion d'une mise au point portant \u00e0 la fois sur les th\u00e9ories antiques de l'homonymie et de la synonymie, et sur l'importance de ces commentaires comme sources de nos connaissances en mati\u00e8re de philosophie antique. [introduction p. 344-345]","btype":3,"date":"1984","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oqTrFiRR6jzhlNL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":507,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":" \u00c9cole pratique des hautes \u00e9tudes, Section des sciences religieuses. Annuaire","volume":"93","issue":"","pages":"343-356"}},"sort":[1984]}

Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diogène et la reconstruction de l’argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24), 1983
By: Laks, André
Title Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diogène et la reconstruction de l’argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24)
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1983
Published in Diogène d’Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et témoignages
Pages 37-53
Categories no categories
Author(s) Laks, André
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The article discusses the circumstances of the transmission of the fragments of Diogenes and the reconstruction of his argument by Simplicius in his Commentary on Physics. It highlights the significance of Simplicius' work in shedding light on the ancient philosopher, and explains how Simplicius came to cite Diogenes verbatim. The article also explores the issue of intermediaries in the texts and the difficulties in their construction. The study is important in understanding the history of philosophy and the transmission of ancient texts. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1188","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1188,"authors_free":[{"id":1760,"entry_id":1188,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne et la reconstruction de l\u2019argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24)","main_title":{"title":"Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne et la reconstruction de l\u2019argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24)"},"abstract":"The article discusses the circumstances of the transmission of the fragments of Diogenes and the reconstruction of his argument by Simplicius in his Commentary on Physics. It highlights the significance of Simplicius' work in shedding light on the ancient philosopher, and explains how Simplicius came to cite Diogenes verbatim. The article also explores the issue of intermediaries in the texts and the difficulties in their construction. The study is important in understanding the history of philosophy and the transmission of ancient texts. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1983","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NoBGGFCfD4qd7PP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1188,"section_of":1367,"pages":"37-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1367,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Diog\u00e8ne d\u2019Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et t\u00e9moignages","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Laks2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Depuis la premi\u00e8re \u00e9dition de ce livre, Diog\u00e8ne d'Apollonie, un des derniers \"physiciens\" pr\u00e9socratiques, longtemps d\u00e9valoris\u00e9 par la r\u00e9putation d' \"\u00e9clectique\" que H. Diels avait attach\u00e9e \u00e0 son nom dans un article de 1881, a suscit\u00e9 un regain d'int\u00e9r\u00eat.\r\n\r\nCette seconde \u00e9dition d'un ouvrage qui reste \u00e0 ce jour le seul commentaire exhaustif des fragments et des t\u00e9moignages de Diog\u00e8ne, a \u00e9t\u00e9 revue et corrig\u00e9e, mais elle prend aussi en compte, dans une s\u00e9rie d'ajouts marqu\u00e9s comme tels, les travaux parus au cours des vint-cinq ann\u00e9es \u00e9coul\u00e9es. Le livre retrace l'histoire de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne, analyse les positions de la critique moderne depuis l'article s\u00e9minal de F. Schleiermacher (1811), et offre, pour chacun des douze fragments et des quelques trente-six t\u00e9moignages, dont un nouveau classement est propos\u00e9, une analyse visant \u00e0 reconstruire la logique de l'original perdu.\r\n\r\nQuatre des Notes additionnelles abordent des probl\u00e8mes sp\u00e9cifiques, qui requ\u00e9raient un traitement s\u00e9par\u00e9. Une cinqui\u00e8me, en anglais, offre une pr\u00e9sentation synth\u00e9tique de l'interpr\u00e9tation ici d\u00e9fendue, qui situe l'importance de Diog\u00e8ne dans son rapport \u00e0 Anaxagore et \u00e0 sa doctrine de l' \"intellect\". [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WWBP0kG5a0nZ1I3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1367,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"International Pre-Platonic Studies","volume":"6","edition_no":"2 (1st 1983)","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1983]}

Paratasis. De la description aspectuelle des verbes grecs à une définition du temps dans le néoplatonisme tardif, 1983
By: Hoffmann, Philippe
Title Paratasis. De la description aspectuelle des verbes grecs à une définition du temps dans le néoplatonisme tardif
Type Article
Language French
Date 1983
Journal Revue des Études Grecques
Volume 96
Issue 455/459
Pages 1-26
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Ainsi, le concept de paralasis est profondément solidaire d’un thème qui est au cœur de la pensée de Damascius : la distinction entre ce qui est en train de se différencier et ce dont la différenciation est achevée. C’est aussi la distinction entre la procession et la conversion, entre la puissance et l’activité, entre la vie et l’intellect, entre le second diacosme (intelligible et intellectif) et le troisième (intellectif) : dans tous ces couples, le premier terme se distingue du second comme, dans Physique VI, « l’action de se mouvoir se distingue du mouvement accompli » (95). Aristote est la source avouée de Damascius, qui lui consacrait des cours (on sait par exemple que le premier livre du Commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo a vraisemblablement été rédigé à partir de notes prises au cours de Damascius) (96) : il « pense le temps à la fois à partir du Parménide de Platon et à partir des livres IV et VI de la Physique d’Aristote. C’est à la lumière d’Aristote qu’il interprète Platon. C’est à Aristote lui-même qu’il emprunte les éléments de sa résolution des apories posées en Physique IV. Et la clé de sa doctrine du temps est à chercher en Physique VI » (97). Il faut ajouter immédiatement que c’est à partir de la pensée stoïcienne du temps que Damascius lit Physique VI et élabore sa théorie du « temps intégral ». Le « temps intégral », qui demeure « tout entier à la fois dans la subsistance », est pensé selon l’être-ensemble de ses parties. Analogue au maintenant diastèmatique, qui est partie et non limite du temps, il a pour image le présent de la danse, en qui passé et futur sont contenus et résorbés : bien qu’elle se déroute dans une succession, la danse est présentement en train d’être dansée (98), et c’est sur le même mode que le combat est lui aussi présent. La subsistance d’un tel présent se fonde sur l’unité d’une action en devenir, qui s’exprime par un verbe au présent extensif. L’influence du stoïcisme sur Damascius semble déterminante : on reconnaît sans peine dans ses analyses le présent étendu qui est le présent sensible de l’expérience pratique, celui en qui vient se loger une action comme « je marche » (action portée à élocution par un présent extensif) ; et son « temps intégral » n’est pas sans analogie avec le mode de présence de la période cosmique stoïcienne (99). À cette influence philosophique du stoïcisme, il faut ajouter son influence grammaticale. Damascius fut pendant neuf ans professeur de rhétorique. C’est sans aucun doute à cette longue pratique des textes et des mots qu’il faut rapporter l’attention extrême qu’il prête au langage, ainsi que la thématisation des problèmes du langage au sein même de sa pensée philosophique (100). C’est à une grammaire d’inspiration stoïcienne qu’il faut rapporter sa méthode d’exégèse, ou plutôt le contenu de son exégèse de Physique IV (221 a 6-9) : l’infinitif être, compris comme activité d’être, est envisagé dans l’extension aspectuelle, et Damascius le considère comme l’équivalent de paratasis tou einai. Cette explication de texte scrupuleuse, qui est bien dans la manière de Damascius, permet à celui-ci de proposer sa définition du temps, tout en soulignant sa fidélité par rapport à la double autorité d’Archytas et d’Aristote. [conclusion p. 23-25]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"713","_score":null,"_source":{"id":713,"authors_free":[{"id":1063,"entry_id":713,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Paratasis. De la description aspectuelle des verbes grecs \u00e0 une d\u00e9finition du temps dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif","main_title":{"title":"Paratasis. De la description aspectuelle des verbes grecs \u00e0 une d\u00e9finition du temps dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif"},"abstract":"Ainsi, le concept de paralasis est profond\u00e9ment solidaire d\u2019un th\u00e8me qui est au c\u0153ur de la pens\u00e9e de Damascius : la distinction entre ce qui est en train de se diff\u00e9rencier et ce dont la diff\u00e9renciation est achev\u00e9e. C\u2019est aussi la distinction entre la procession et la conversion, entre la puissance et l\u2019activit\u00e9, entre la vie et l\u2019intellect, entre le second diacosme (intelligible et intellectif) et le troisi\u00e8me (intellectif) : dans tous ces couples, le premier terme se distingue du second comme, dans Physique VI, \u00ab l\u2019action de se mouvoir se distingue du mouvement accompli \u00bb (95).\r\n\r\nAristote est la source avou\u00e9e de Damascius, qui lui consacrait des cours (on sait par exemple que le premier livre du Commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo a vraisemblablement \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9dig\u00e9 \u00e0 partir de notes prises au cours de Damascius) (96) : il \u00ab pense le temps \u00e0 la fois \u00e0 partir du Parm\u00e9nide de Platon et \u00e0 partir des livres IV et VI de la Physique d\u2019Aristote. C\u2019est \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re d\u2019Aristote qu\u2019il interpr\u00e8te Platon. C\u2019est \u00e0 Aristote lui-m\u00eame qu\u2019il emprunte les \u00e9l\u00e9ments de sa r\u00e9solution des apories pos\u00e9es en Physique IV. Et la cl\u00e9 de sa doctrine du temps est \u00e0 chercher en Physique VI \u00bb (97).\r\n\r\nIl faut ajouter imm\u00e9diatement que c\u2019est \u00e0 partir de la pens\u00e9e sto\u00efcienne du temps que Damascius lit Physique VI et \u00e9labore sa th\u00e9orie du \u00ab temps int\u00e9gral \u00bb. Le \u00ab temps int\u00e9gral \u00bb, qui demeure \u00ab tout entier \u00e0 la fois dans la subsistance \u00bb, est pens\u00e9 selon l\u2019\u00eatre-ensemble de ses parties. Analogue au maintenant diast\u00e8matique, qui est partie et non limite du temps, il a pour image le pr\u00e9sent de la danse, en qui pass\u00e9 et futur sont contenus et r\u00e9sorb\u00e9s : bien qu\u2019elle se d\u00e9route dans une succession, la danse est pr\u00e9sentement en train d\u2019\u00eatre dans\u00e9e (98), et c\u2019est sur le m\u00eame mode que le combat est lui aussi pr\u00e9sent.\r\n\r\nLa subsistance d\u2019un tel pr\u00e9sent se fonde sur l\u2019unit\u00e9 d\u2019une action en devenir, qui s\u2019exprime par un verbe au pr\u00e9sent extensif. L\u2019influence du sto\u00efcisme sur Damascius semble d\u00e9terminante : on reconna\u00eet sans peine dans ses analyses le pr\u00e9sent \u00e9tendu qui est le pr\u00e9sent sensible de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience pratique, celui en qui vient se loger une action comme \u00ab je marche \u00bb (action port\u00e9e \u00e0 \u00e9locution par un pr\u00e9sent extensif) ; et son \u00ab temps int\u00e9gral \u00bb n\u2019est pas sans analogie avec le mode de pr\u00e9sence de la p\u00e9riode cosmique sto\u00efcienne (99).\r\n\r\n\u00c0 cette influence philosophique du sto\u00efcisme, il faut ajouter son influence grammaticale. Damascius fut pendant neuf ans professeur de rh\u00e9torique. C\u2019est sans aucun doute \u00e0 cette longue pratique des textes et des mots qu\u2019il faut rapporter l\u2019attention extr\u00eame qu\u2019il pr\u00eate au langage, ainsi que la th\u00e9matisation des probl\u00e8mes du langage au sein m\u00eame de sa pens\u00e9e philosophique (100). C\u2019est \u00e0 une grammaire d\u2019inspiration sto\u00efcienne qu\u2019il faut rapporter sa m\u00e9thode d\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, ou plut\u00f4t le contenu de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Physique IV (221 a 6-9) : l\u2019infinitif \u00eatre, compris comme activit\u00e9 d\u2019\u00eatre, est envisag\u00e9 dans l\u2019extension aspectuelle, et Damascius le consid\u00e8re comme l\u2019\u00e9quivalent de paratasis tou einai. Cette explication de texte scrupuleuse, qui est bien dans la mani\u00e8re de Damascius, permet \u00e0 celui-ci de proposer sa d\u00e9finition du temps, tout en soulignant sa fid\u00e9lit\u00e9 par rapport \u00e0 la double autorit\u00e9 d\u2019Archytas et d\u2019Aristote. [conclusion p. 23-25]","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LNb8H8UiMDNsVyS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":713,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques","volume":"96","issue":"455\/459","pages":"1-26"}},"sort":[1983]}

On Some Epicurean and Lucretian Arguments for the Infinity of the Universe, 1983
By: Avotins, Ivars
Title On Some Epicurean and Lucretian Arguments for the Infinity of the Universe
Type Article
Language English
Date 1983
Journal The Classical Quarterly
Volume 33
Issue 2
Pages 421-427
Categories no categories
Author(s) Avotins, Ivars
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
As is well known, Epicurus and his followers held that the universe was infinite and that its two primary components, void and atoms, were each infinite. The void was infinite in extension, the atoms were infinite in number and their total was infinite also in extension.' The chief Epicurean proofs of these infinities are found in Epicurus, Ad Herod. 41-2, and in Lucretius 1. 951-1020. As far as I can see, both the commentators to these works and writers on Epicurean physics in general have neglected to take into account some material pertinent to these proofs, material found in Aristotle and especially in his commentators Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, Simplicius, and Philoponus.2 In this article I wish to compare this neglected information with the proofs of infinity found in Epicurus and Lucretius and to discuss their authorship. [p. 421]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1001","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1001,"authors_free":[{"id":1506,"entry_id":1001,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":38,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Avotins, Ivars","free_first_name":"Ivars","free_last_name":"Avotins","norm_person":{"id":38,"first_name":"Ivars","last_name":"Avotins","full_name":"Avotins, Ivars","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On Some Epicurean and Lucretian Arguments for the Infinity of the Universe","main_title":{"title":"On Some Epicurean and Lucretian Arguments for the Infinity of the Universe"},"abstract":"As is well known, Epicurus and his followers held that the universe was infinite and \r\nthat its two primary components, void and atoms, were each infinite. The void was \r\ninfinite in extension, the atoms were infinite in number and their total was infinite also \r\nin extension.' The chief Epicurean proofs of these infinities are found in Epicurus, Ad \r\nHerod. 41-2, and in Lucretius 1. 951-1020. As far as I can see, both the commentators \r\nto these works and writers on Epicurean physics in general have neglected to take into \r\naccount some material pertinent to these proofs, material found in Aristotle and \r\nespecially in his commentators Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, Simplicius, and \r\nPhiloponus.2 In this article I wish to compare this neglected information with the \r\nproofs of infinity found in Epicurus and Lucretius and to discuss their authorship. [p. 421]","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZJK8o9VUGwRqW5s","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":38,"full_name":"Avotins, Ivars","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1001,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"33","issue":"2","pages":"421-427"}},"sort":[1983]}

Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: Über die Zeit, 1983
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: Über die Zeit
Type Article
Language English
Date 1983
Journal The Classical Review, New Series
Volume 33
Issue 2
Pages 337-338
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Like a well-trained Neoplatonist commentator, Sonderegger outlines the skopos of his book on the first page. It is to consider Simplicius' thought about time and make it available to a wider audience (an audience that would, however, need to know Greek). His basis is the 28-page excursus at the end of Simplicius' commentary on Physics 4, known as the Corollarium de Tempore (hereafter, with S., CdT), to which, in the main body of the book, he attends with the minimum of excursions. This is partly dictated by his announced interest in Simplicius himself rather than his relation to other thinkers: as he rightly says, that cannot be treated until it is clear what Simplicius himself thought. In the present state of work on late Neoplatonism, this is not a trivial point. Sonderegger's aims have produced a very different book from the little-noticed work of H. Meyer, Das Corollarium de Tempore des Simplikios und die Aporien des Aristoteles über die Zeit (Meisenheim am Glan, 1969). Meyer's book is more philosophical and also differs in that his purpose was primarily to understand Aristotle, with no notion of being exoteric. Of this book, Sonderegger takes virtually no account, on the grounds that its presuppositions are very different from his own. What Sonderegger has given us is a very detailed and careful descriptive analysis of CdT, with special attention to the organization of the discussions (pp. 38–139), preceded by an introduction on Simplicius' Physics commentary, his excursuses, and Neoplatonism in general, and followed by some 30 pages of translation and 20 of appendices. These include a table of the uses and contexts of key terms in CdT, examinations of the extent and authenticity of quotations from Ps.-Archytas, Iamblichus, and Damascius, and a translation of Simplicius In Categorias 356.8–25, which contains in nuce much of the thought of CdT. Sonderegger is clearly aware that Simplicius wrote commentaries to expound his own philosophy, yet he tends to exaggerate the difference in thought rather than merely presentation, which might be expected in CdT and the analogous digressions on chance and place, as opposed to those parts of the commentary that start from specific lemmata. Even if CdT is more connected, it still proceeds largely by discussing quoted texts, and, as Sonderegger reminds us, Simplicius' aim is always to arrive at his own view of time. That, he claims, will help us to understand Aristotle (773.12–14): one recalls uneasily the project of expounding the De anima while following Iamblichus (In De an. 1.18–20). Sonderegger perhaps underestimates the extent to which Simplicius saw himself as engaged in the same enterprise as Aristotle—and Plato. Though he can cite texts for Simplicius' awareness of the difference between what he and Aristotle say, it does not always follow that Simplicius saw the difference between what he and Aristotle think. The texts Sonderegger quotes at p. 25 n.50 rather point out that Aristotle's intentions are the same, even if his language is not. Thus, 356.31 ff. clearly shows that Simplicius thinks the views on time (chronos) of Aristotle and hoi Neoteroi (the Neoplatonists) are not different. Conversely, in his sketch of the Neoplatonist background, which, as he says, constantly appears in Simplicius' commentary, Sonderegger is inclined to underplay divergences. It is only in the broadest sense true that the outlines of Simplicius' Neoplatonism were determined by Plotinus. The qualification that he liked to attach himself to Iamblichus and used terminology that can be traced back to Proclus is more important. The extent of Proclus' influence is thoroughly documented by I. Hadot, Le Problème du Néoplatonisme Alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius (Paris, 1978), cited on p. 26 n. 51. I cannot understand the arguments here (29–35) that, for Simplicius, the hypostases are somehow unreal. This is conducted in terms drawn from Husserl and Heidegger, which, to an English-speaking reader, are not immediately illuminating. Incidentally, diakrisis is not an entity. To treat it as if it were is a kind of hyper-Neoplatonic realism: the meaning of "differentiation" is normally adequate. On time itself, there is a major difference between Plotinus and his post-Iamblichean successors on a point which concerns Sonderegger throughout: the invention of a further type of time that almost becomes a separate hypostasis. This is the psychic time that Simplicius calls protos chronos, as opposed to ordinary physical time on the one hand and aion on the other. The exposition and defense of this first time is the main aim of CdT. It is even more clearly a product of late Neoplatonic triadic thinking than Sonderegger's discussion (69–74) shows. If there is a triad of things permanent and ungenerated, permanent and generated, impermanent and generated, a mediating time is required for the second member of the triad. That this is Simplicius' thinking is shown by the way he has opposed aion as adiakritos and physical time as ho en ti thesei theôrmenos (784.34 ff.), a relation justifying, if not requiring, a higher time. The most notable recasting of Aristotle in Neoplatonist terms is the transformation of his definition into metron tou kata to einai rhontos (not quite "Mass des Seins des Physischen"), which, for all his concern to show that Simplicius distinguishes between Aristotle's views and his own, Sonderegger seems inclined to accept (cf. esp. 43 f. and 138). The translation aims at utility rather than elegance. Its value is greater at a time when interest in the thought of late antiquity is spreading among the wholly or nearly Greekless. Translations are increasingly called for. But who would translate the 1,366 pages of Simplicius' Physics commentary, or, indeed, publish the translation? [the entire review]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"770","_score":null,"_source":{"id":770,"authors_free":[{"id":1134,"entry_id":770,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit","main_title":{"title":"Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit"},"abstract":"Like a well-trained Neoplatonist commentator, Sonderegger outlines the skopos of his book on the first page. It is to consider Simplicius' thought about time and make it available to a wider audience (an audience that would, however, need to know Greek). His basis is the 28-page excursus at the end of Simplicius' commentary on Physics 4, known as the Corollarium de Tempore (hereafter, with S., CdT), to which, in the main body of the book, he attends with the minimum of excursions. This is partly dictated by his announced interest in Simplicius himself rather than his relation to other thinkers: as he rightly says, that cannot be treated until it is clear what Simplicius himself thought. In the present state of work on late Neoplatonism, this is not a trivial point.\r\n\r\nSonderegger's aims have produced a very different book from the little-noticed work of H. Meyer, Das Corollarium de Tempore des Simplikios und die Aporien des Aristoteles \u00fcber die Zeit (Meisenheim am Glan, 1969). Meyer's book is more philosophical and also differs in that his purpose was primarily to understand Aristotle, with no notion of being exoteric. Of this book, Sonderegger takes virtually no account, on the grounds that its presuppositions are very different from his own. What Sonderegger has given us is a very detailed and careful descriptive analysis of CdT, with special attention to the organization of the discussions (pp. 38\u2013139), preceded by an introduction on Simplicius' Physics commentary, his excursuses, and Neoplatonism in general, and followed by some 30 pages of translation and 20 of appendices. These include a table of the uses and contexts of key terms in CdT, examinations of the extent and authenticity of quotations from Ps.-Archytas, Iamblichus, and Damascius, and a translation of Simplicius In Categorias 356.8\u201325, which contains in nuce much of the thought of CdT.\r\n\r\nSonderegger is clearly aware that Simplicius wrote commentaries to expound his own philosophy, yet he tends to exaggerate the difference in thought rather than merely presentation, which might be expected in CdT and the analogous digressions on chance and place, as opposed to those parts of the commentary that start from specific lemmata. Even if CdT is more connected, it still proceeds largely by discussing quoted texts, and, as Sonderegger reminds us, Simplicius' aim is always to arrive at his own view of time. That, he claims, will help us to understand Aristotle (773.12\u201314): one recalls uneasily the project of expounding the De anima while following Iamblichus (In De an. 1.18\u201320). Sonderegger perhaps underestimates the extent to which Simplicius saw himself as engaged in the same enterprise as Aristotle\u2014and Plato.\r\n\r\nThough he can cite texts for Simplicius' awareness of the difference between what he and Aristotle say, it does not always follow that Simplicius saw the difference between what he and Aristotle think. The texts Sonderegger quotes at p. 25 n.50 rather point out that Aristotle's intentions are the same, even if his language is not. Thus, 356.31 ff. clearly shows that Simplicius thinks the views on time (chronos) of Aristotle and hoi Neoteroi (the Neoplatonists) are not different. Conversely, in his sketch of the Neoplatonist background, which, as he says, constantly appears in Simplicius' commentary, Sonderegger is inclined to underplay divergences. It is only in the broadest sense true that the outlines of Simplicius' Neoplatonism were determined by Plotinus. The qualification that he liked to attach himself to Iamblichus and used terminology that can be traced back to Proclus is more important.\r\n\r\nThe extent of Proclus' influence is thoroughly documented by I. Hadot, Le Probl\u00e8me du N\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius (Paris, 1978), cited on p. 26 n. 51. I cannot understand the arguments here (29\u201335) that, for Simplicius, the hypostases are somehow unreal. This is conducted in terms drawn from Husserl and Heidegger, which, to an English-speaking reader, are not immediately illuminating. Incidentally, diakrisis is not an entity. To treat it as if it were is a kind of hyper-Neoplatonic realism: the meaning of \"differentiation\" is normally adequate.\r\n\r\nOn time itself, there is a major difference between Plotinus and his post-Iamblichean successors on a point which concerns Sonderegger throughout: the invention of a further type of time that almost becomes a separate hypostasis. This is the psychic time that Simplicius calls protos chronos, as opposed to ordinary physical time on the one hand and aion on the other. The exposition and defense of this first time is the main aim of CdT. It is even more clearly a product of late Neoplatonic triadic thinking than Sonderegger's discussion (69\u201374) shows.\r\n\r\nIf there is a triad of things permanent and ungenerated, permanent and generated, impermanent and generated, a mediating time is required for the second member of the triad. That this is Simplicius' thinking is shown by the way he has opposed aion as adiakritos and physical time as ho en ti thesei the\u00f4rmenos (784.34 ff.), a relation justifying, if not requiring, a higher time. The most notable recasting of Aristotle in Neoplatonist terms is the transformation of his definition into metron tou kata to einai rhontos (not quite \"Mass des Seins des Physischen\"), which, for all his concern to show that Simplicius distinguishes between Aristotle's views and his own, Sonderegger seems inclined to accept (cf. esp. 43 f. and 138).\r\n\r\nThe translation aims at utility rather than elegance. Its value is greater at a time when interest in the thought of late antiquity is spreading among the wholly or nearly Greekless. Translations are increasingly called for. But who would translate the 1,366 pages of Simplicius' Physics commentary, or, indeed, publish the translation? [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZCYOjLO9LGrxQNt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":770,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review, New Series","volume":"33","issue":"2","pages":"337-338"}},"sort":[1983]}

Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung, 1983
By: Irmscher, Johannes (Ed.), Müller, Reimar (Ed.)
Title Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung
Type Edited Book
Language German
Date 1983
Publication Place Berlin
Publisher Akademie-Verlag
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Irmscher, Johannes , Müller, Reimar
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"325","_score":null,"_source":{"id":325,"authors_free":[{"id":414,"entry_id":325,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":352,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","free_first_name":"Johannes","free_last_name":"Irmscher","norm_person":{"id":352,"first_name":"Johannes","last_name":"Irmscher","full_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119489201","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":415,"entry_id":325,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":353,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","free_first_name":"Reimar","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":353,"first_name":"Reimar","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/106717707","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung","main_title":{"title":"Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1983","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A1XXLVpd3w2XvXY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":352,"full_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":353,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":325,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Akademie-Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1983]}

Diogène d'Apollonie: La dernière cosmologie présocratique, 1983
By: Laks, André
Title Diogène d'Apollonie: La dernière cosmologie présocratique
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1983
Publication Place Sankt Augustin
Publisher Academia-Verlag
Series International pre-Platonic studies
Volume 6
Edition No. 2 (1st 1998)
Categories no categories
Author(s) Laks, André
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Cet ouvrage s'inscrit dans la série des travaux que le Centre de Recherche Philosophique de l'Université de Lille III consacre à l'étude des cosmologies grecques. Après le système classique d'Empédocle et la réflexion critique d'Epicure à l'époque hellénistique, on s'intéresse ici à un penseur charnière, le dernier représentant de l' "ancienne physique".La notoriété de Diogène d'Apollonie est faible, au-delà du cercle restreint des spécialistes du Ve siècle grec. Ce tard venu n'a pas le renom d'Anaximandre ou d'Empédocle, ni celui de Démocrite, dont il est contemporain. Et pourtant, sa pensée n'est pas seulement l'ultime avatar d'une lignée dont il serait au fond indigne. Elle représente au contraire une forme d'achèvement, offrant une solution possible, dans le cadre du paradigme cosmologique hérité, au problème, laissé ouvert par le système d'Anaxagore, du mode d'action de "l'intellect" (νούς) dans le monde. La pertinence et la spécificité de la démarche, qui induit une doctrine de l'immanence, ressortent clairement quand on la confronte avec la célèbre critique d'Anaxagore menée par Socrate au nom de la téléologie dans le Phédon de Platon, et qui signe l'arrêt de mort de la spéculation présocratique. [a.a]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"20","_score":null,"_source":{"id":20,"authors_free":[{"id":21,"entry_id":20,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Diog\u00e8ne d'Apollonie: La derni\u00e8re cosmologie pr\u00e9socratique","main_title":{"title":"Diog\u00e8ne d'Apollonie: La derni\u00e8re cosmologie pr\u00e9socratique"},"abstract":"Cet ouvrage s'inscrit dans la s\u00e9rie des travaux que le Centre de Recherche Philosophique de l'Universit\u00e9 de Lille III consacre \u00e0 l'\u00e9tude des cosmologies grecques. Apr\u00e8s le syst\u00e8me classique d'Emp\u00e9docle et la r\u00e9flexion critique d'Epicure \u00e0 l'\u00e9poque hell\u00e9nistique, on s'int\u00e9resse ici \u00e0 un penseur charni\u00e8re, le dernier repr\u00e9sentant de l' \"ancienne physique\".La notori\u00e9t\u00e9 de Diog\u00e8ne d'Apollonie est faible, au-del\u00e0 du cercle restreint des sp\u00e9cialistes du Ve si\u00e8cle grec. Ce tard venu n'a pas le renom d'Anaximandre ou d'Emp\u00e9docle, ni celui de D\u00e9mocrite, dont il est contemporain. Et pourtant, sa pens\u00e9e n'est pas seulement l'ultime avatar d'une lign\u00e9e dont il serait au fond indigne. Elle repr\u00e9sente au contraire une forme d'ach\u00e8vement, offrant une solution possible, dans le cadre du paradigme cosmologique h\u00e9rit\u00e9, au probl\u00e8me, laiss\u00e9 ouvert par le syst\u00e8me d'Anaxagore, du mode d'action de \"l'intellect\" (\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2) dans le monde. La pertinence et la sp\u00e9cificit\u00e9 de la d\u00e9marche, qui induit une doctrine de l'immanence, ressortent clairement quand on la confronte avec la c\u00e9l\u00e8bre critique d'Anaxagore men\u00e9e par Socrate au nom de la t\u00e9l\u00e9ologie dans le Ph\u00e9don de Platon, et qui signe l'arr\u00eat de mort de la sp\u00e9culation pr\u00e9socratique. [a.a]","btype":1,"date":"1983","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KVFpTS2HQXnKwpF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":20,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia-Verlag","series":"International pre-Platonic studies","volume":"6","edition_no":"2 (1st 1998)","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1983]}

La teoria della relazione nei commentatori neoplatonici delle "Categorie" di Aristotele, 1983
By: Conti, Alessandro D.
Title La teoria della relazione nei commentatori neoplatonici delle "Categorie" di Aristotele
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 1983
Journal Rivista critica di storia della filosofia
Volume 38
Issue 3
Pages 259-283
Categories no categories
Author(s) Conti, Alessandro D.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Uno dei contributi particolari più rilevanti che i commentatori neoplatonici hanno recato allo sviluppo e alla sistemazione della dottrina categoriale aristotelica è senza dubbio quello relativo all'analisi della nozione di πρός τι. Essi, infatti, nel tentativo di fornire un'interpretazione del settimo capitolo delle Categorie che fosse (i) internamente coerente e (ii) solidale con la lettura generale del trattato, sono giunti a elaborare in forma sufficientemente compiuta un concetto di relazione analogo al moderno concetto di relazione binaria, del tutto assente, invece, negli scritti di Aristotele, che pare conoscere solo un non ben definito concetto di relativo (πρός τι). In altre parole: mentre lo Stagirita (i) operava con la sola nozione di relativo e (ii) concepiva i relativi — sotto l'influenza di evidenti suggestioni grammaticali — come le entità che corrispondono ai termini non assoluti del linguaggio (cioè non aventi significato se non in riferimento a un altro termine), i neoplatonici, al contrario, saranno in grado (i) di servirsi sia della nozione di relativo che di quella di relazione (σχέσις), e (ii) di concepire, in un certo qual modo, le relazioni come funzioni diadiche (o meglio, come una sorta di corrispettivo ontologico delle nostre funzioni diadiche) e i relativi come gli argomenti che tali funzioni soddisfano. Le precise scelte interpretative su alcuni problemi cruciali del trattato, e cioè: la valenza della tavola categoriale, la distinzione delle categorie, il tipo d'esistenza degli accidenti da una parte, e l'accettazione dell'idea, aristotelicamente corretta, che i πρός τι devono essere presi a coppie, dall'altra, sono gli elementi che hanno reso possibile ai neoplatonici la formulazione del concetto di relazione (binaria). Essi infatti ritenevano: che la tavola categoriale avesse una precisa valenza ontologica, ripartendo non solo nomi e concetti, ma anche cose; che la distinzione tra le dieci categorie fosse reale e non concettuale; che gli accidenti fossero forme inerenti alle sostanze. In conseguenza dei primi due punti, i neoplatonici erano indotti a difendere l'oggettività, la realtà e l'indipendenza della categoria dei πρός τι e dei suoi appartenenti, e a rifiutare, quindi, qualsiasi tentativo di interpretazione che volesse ridurla, direttamente o indirettamente, alle altre categorie. D'altra parte, concepire gli accidenti come forme inerenti alle sostanze equivaleva a considerare il rapporto tra ciascun genere degli accidenti e la sostanza alla stregua di quello della qualità, e quindi secondo il modello qualità-cosa qualificata. Così, nel caso dei πρός τι, i neoplatonici pensavano che l'entità "padre" fosse un'entità composta di una sostanza e di una certa forma accidentale, la paternità, ad essa inerente, non diversamente da come "bianco" è un'entità composta da una sostanza e dalla forma della bianchezza. Per avere un concetto corretto di relazione bastava, a questo punto, assumere, coerentemente con l'idea che i πρός τι vanno presi a coppie, che la caratteristica peculiare di queste particolari forme accidentali fosse quella di riferirsi e collegare tra loro due entità distinte. Scrive, ad esempio, Simplicio: «È proprio soltanto della relazione il sussistere una in molti enti, cosa che non capita a nessuna delle altre categorie» (Simplicio, In Cat., p. 161, 6-8). E si legge in Olimpiodoro: «Infatti nei relativi una è la relazione, ma distinte le entità che l'accolgono» (Olimpiodoro, In Cat., p. 97, 30-1). Su queste nuove basi concettuali, i commentatori neoplatonici potranno sviluppare una teoria dei πρός τι sufficientemente omogenea e coerente nelle sue linee più generali, che adopereranno come modello interpretativo della confusa dottrina aristotelica. In questo modo, essi riusciranno a presentare quest'ultima come un sistema sostanzialmente compiuto e ordinato. E anzi, i punti e gli elementi incongrui che ancora vi sopravviveranno saranno dovuti più a un evidente desiderio di giustificare e spiegare comunque — per lo meno parzialmente se non in toto — le affermazioni dello Stagirita, che a delle effettive carenze nella teoria da essi elaborata. [introduction p. 259-263]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1275","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1275,"authors_free":[{"id":1864,"entry_id":1275,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":52,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Conti, Alessandro D.","free_first_name":"Alessandro D.","free_last_name":"Conti","norm_person":{"id":52,"first_name":"Alessandro D.","last_name":"Conti","full_name":"Conti, Alessandro D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1047115123","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La teoria della relazione nei commentatori neoplatonici delle \"Categorie\" di Aristotele","main_title":{"title":"La teoria della relazione nei commentatori neoplatonici delle \"Categorie\" di Aristotele"},"abstract":"Uno dei contributi particolari pi\u00f9 rilevanti che i commentatori neoplatonici hanno recato allo sviluppo e alla sistemazione della dottrina categoriale aristotelica \u00e8 senza dubbio quello relativo all'analisi della nozione di \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9.\r\n\r\nEssi, infatti, nel tentativo di fornire un'interpretazione del settimo capitolo delle Categorie che fosse (i) internamente coerente e (ii) solidale con la lettura generale del trattato, sono giunti a elaborare in forma sufficientemente compiuta un concetto di relazione analogo al moderno concetto di relazione binaria, del tutto assente, invece, negli scritti di Aristotele, che pare conoscere solo un non ben definito concetto di relativo (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9).\r\n\r\nIn altre parole: mentre lo Stagirita (i) operava con la sola nozione di relativo e (ii) concepiva i relativi \u2014 sotto l'influenza di evidenti suggestioni grammaticali \u2014 come le entit\u00e0 che corrispondono ai termini non assoluti del linguaggio (cio\u00e8 non aventi significato se non in riferimento a un altro termine), i neoplatonici, al contrario, saranno in grado (i) di servirsi sia della nozione di relativo che di quella di relazione (\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), e (ii) di concepire, in un certo qual modo, le relazioni come funzioni diadiche (o meglio, come una sorta di corrispettivo ontologico delle nostre funzioni diadiche) e i relativi come gli argomenti che tali funzioni soddisfano.\r\n\r\nLe precise scelte interpretative su alcuni problemi cruciali del trattato, e cio\u00e8:\r\n\r\n la valenza della tavola categoriale,\r\n la distinzione delle categorie,\r\n il tipo d'esistenza degli accidenti\r\n\r\nda una parte, e l'accettazione dell'idea, aristotelicamente corretta, che i \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 devono essere presi a coppie, dall'altra, sono gli elementi che hanno reso possibile ai neoplatonici la formulazione del concetto di relazione (binaria).\r\n\r\nEssi infatti ritenevano:\r\n\r\n che la tavola categoriale avesse una precisa valenza ontologica, ripartendo non solo nomi e concetti, ma anche cose;\r\n che la distinzione tra le dieci categorie fosse reale e non concettuale;\r\n che gli accidenti fossero forme inerenti alle sostanze.\r\n\r\nIn conseguenza dei primi due punti, i neoplatonici erano indotti a difendere l'oggettivit\u00e0, la realt\u00e0 e l'indipendenza della categoria dei \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 e dei suoi appartenenti, e a rifiutare, quindi, qualsiasi tentativo di interpretazione che volesse ridurla, direttamente o indirettamente, alle altre categorie.\r\n\r\nD'altra parte, concepire gli accidenti come forme inerenti alle sostanze equivaleva a considerare il rapporto tra ciascun genere degli accidenti e la sostanza alla stregua di quello della qualit\u00e0, e quindi secondo il modello qualit\u00e0-cosa qualificata.\r\n\r\nCos\u00ec, nel caso dei \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9, i neoplatonici pensavano che l'entit\u00e0 \"padre\" fosse un'entit\u00e0 composta di una sostanza e di una certa forma accidentale, la paternit\u00e0, ad essa inerente, non diversamente da come \"bianco\" \u00e8 un'entit\u00e0 composta da una sostanza e dalla forma della bianchezza.\r\n\r\nPer avere un concetto corretto di relazione bastava, a questo punto, assumere, coerentemente con l'idea che i \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 vanno presi a coppie, che la caratteristica peculiare di queste particolari forme accidentali fosse quella di riferirsi e collegare tra loro due entit\u00e0 distinte.\r\n\r\nScrive, ad esempio, Simplicio:\r\n\r\n \u00ab\u00c8 proprio soltanto della relazione il sussistere una in molti enti, cosa che non capita a nessuna delle altre categorie\u00bb (Simplicio, In Cat., p. 161, 6-8).\r\n\r\nE si legge in Olimpiodoro:\r\n\r\n \u00abInfatti nei relativi una \u00e8 la relazione, ma distinte le entit\u00e0 che l'accolgono\u00bb (Olimpiodoro, In Cat., p. 97, 30-1).\r\n\r\nSu queste nuove basi concettuali, i commentatori neoplatonici potranno sviluppare una teoria dei \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 sufficientemente omogenea e coerente nelle sue linee pi\u00f9 generali, che adopereranno come modello interpretativo della confusa dottrina aristotelica.\r\n\r\nIn questo modo, essi riusciranno a presentare quest'ultima come un sistema sostanzialmente compiuto e ordinato.\r\n\r\nE anzi, i punti e gli elementi incongrui che ancora vi sopravviveranno saranno dovuti pi\u00f9 a un evidente desiderio di giustificare e spiegare comunque \u2014 per lo meno parzialmente se non in toto \u2014 le affermazioni dello Stagirita, che a delle effettive carenze nella teoria da essi elaborata. [introduction p. 259-263]","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9gdQy8F1p83C8kj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":52,"full_name":"Conti, Alessandro D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1275,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rivista critica di storia della filosofia","volume":"38","issue":"3","pages":"259-283"}},"sort":[1983]}

Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie, 1983
By: Verbeke, Gérard, Irmscher, Johannes (Ed.), Müller, Reimar (Ed.)
Title Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1983
Published in Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung
Pages 113-122
Categories no categories
Author(s) Verbeke, Gérard
Editor(s) Irmscher, Johannes , Müller, Reimar
Translator(s)
Der Text diskutiert die aristotelische Perspektive zu Ort und Raum sowie die Interpretationen, die Simplikios in späteren neuplatonischen Kommentaren dazu geliefert hat. Die Studie widmet sich drei Hauptfragen bezüglich des Orts: ob er ein Bestandteil von Körpern ist, ob er ein Zwischenraum zwischen umgebenden Körpern ist und welche Bedeutung der Ort hat und welchen Einfluss er auf die Dinge hat. Die aristotelische Physik strebt nach einer grundlegenden Erklärung der sinnlichen Welt und untersucht die Essenz der Bewegung, die Zusammensetzung physischer Körper, Notwendigkeit, Zufall, Unendlichkeit, Ort und Zeit. Der Artikel vergleicht zudem Physik und Metaphysik und betont, dass beide nach umfassenden Erklärungen der Realität streben. Die Untersuchung beleuchtet das aristotelische Verständnis von Ort und Raum und unterstreicht die Wechselwirkung zwischen Ort und der Struktur physischer Objekte. Es wird erörtert, ob Ort ein räumliches Substrat oder eine Form ist und welche Bedeutung die Lokalisierung und ihr Einfluss auf Körper haben. Spätere neuplatonische Kommentare, insbesondere die von Simplikios, haben Aristoteles' Ideen zu diesen Themen kritisch bewertet und weiterentwickelt. [Introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"451","_score":null,"_source":{"id":451,"authors_free":[{"id":605,"entry_id":451,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":606,"entry_id":451,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":352,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","free_first_name":"Johannes","free_last_name":"Irmscher","norm_person":{"id":352,"first_name":"Johannes","last_name":"Irmscher","full_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119489201","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":607,"entry_id":451,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":353,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","free_first_name":"Reimar","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":353,"first_name":"Reimar","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/106717707","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie","main_title":{"title":"Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie"},"abstract":"Der Text diskutiert die aristotelische Perspektive zu Ort und Raum sowie die Interpretationen, die Simplikios in sp\u00e4teren neuplatonischen Kommentaren dazu geliefert hat. Die Studie widmet sich drei Hauptfragen bez\u00fcglich des Orts: ob er ein Bestandteil von K\u00f6rpern ist, ob er ein Zwischenraum zwischen umgebenden K\u00f6rpern ist und welche Bedeutung der Ort hat und welchen Einfluss er auf die Dinge hat. Die aristotelische Physik strebt nach einer grundlegenden Erkl\u00e4rung der sinnlichen Welt und untersucht die Essenz der Bewegung, die Zusammensetzung physischer K\u00f6rper, Notwendigkeit, Zufall, Unendlichkeit, Ort und Zeit. Der Artikel vergleicht zudem Physik und Metaphysik und betont, dass beide nach umfassenden Erkl\u00e4rungen der Realit\u00e4t streben. Die Untersuchung beleuchtet das aristotelische Verst\u00e4ndnis von Ort und Raum und unterstreicht die Wechselwirkung zwischen Ort und der Struktur physischer Objekte. Es wird er\u00f6rtert, ob Ort ein r\u00e4umliches Substrat oder eine Form ist und welche Bedeutung die Lokalisierung und ihr Einfluss auf K\u00f6rper haben. Sp\u00e4tere neuplatonische Kommentare, insbesondere die von Simplikios, haben Aristoteles' Ideen zu diesen Themen kritisch bewertet und weiterentwickelt. [Introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1983","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gefH5Atxe7LieDs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":352,"full_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":353,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":451,"section_of":325,"pages":"113-122","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":325,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Irmscher_M\u00fcller1983","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1983","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1983","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A1XXLVpd3w2XvXY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":325,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Akademie-Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1983]}

La teoria della relazione nei commenti neoplatonici alle Categorie di Aristotele, 1983
By: Conti, A. D.
Title La teoria della relazione nei commenti neoplatonici alle Categorie di Aristotele
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 1983
Journal Rivista Critica di Storia della Filosofía
Volume 3
Pages 159-283
Categories no categories
Author(s) Conti, A. D.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1563","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1563,"authors_free":[{"id":2730,"entry_id":1563,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Conti, A. D. ","free_first_name":"A. D. ","free_last_name":"Conti","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"La teoria della relazione nei commenti neoplatonici alle Categorie di Aristotele","main_title":{"title":"La teoria della relazione nei commenti neoplatonici alle Categorie di Aristotele"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OTIdcLG5JO15mv8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1563,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rivista Critica di Storia della Filosof\u00eda ","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"159-283"}},"sort":[1983]}

Simplicius as a Source for and an Interpreter of Parmenides, 1983
By: Perry, Bruce M.
Title Simplicius as a Source for and an Interpreter of Parmenides
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1983
Publication Place University of Washington
Series Ph.D. Dissertation
Categories no categories
Author(s) Perry, Bruce M.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius, a Neoplatonist of the sixth century, wrote extensive commentaries on Aristotle's works, with his commentary on Physics I being of particular significance for the history of ancient philosophy. In this commentary, Simplicius aimed to demonstrate the harmony of doctrines presented by the Presocratic philosophers, both in the physical and metaphysical realms. However, his work has been largely overlooked, partly due to the dominance of the Vorsokratiker collection as the standard source for Presocratic material. This neglect is also attributed to Simplicius being a late Neoplatonist and a commentator, which led to simplistic assessments of his interpretations. Despite being dismissed as derivative and his interpretations considered anachronistic, Simplicius' commentaries and quotations of the Presocratic authors are valuable sources for understanding their philosophies. His work cannot be separated from his interpretations, and their examination can provide important insights into the context and focus of the Presocratics' ideas. While Simplicius employs Neoplatonic concepts in his interpretations, dismissing them solely on this basis overlooks the depth and philological rigor present in his work. Rejecting his interpretations on these grounds may hinder a comprehensive understanding of the Presocratic philosophers and their contributions to ancient philosophy. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1404","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1404,"authors_free":[{"id":2189,"entry_id":1404,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":381,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perry, Bruce M.","free_first_name":"Bruce M.","free_last_name":"Perry","norm_person":{"id":381,"first_name":"Bruce M.","last_name":"Perry","full_name":"Perry, Bruce M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1127083376","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius as a Source for and an Interpreter of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius as a Source for and an Interpreter of Parmenides"},"abstract":"Simplicius, a Neoplatonist of the sixth century, wrote extensive commentaries on Aristotle's works, with his commentary on Physics I being of particular significance for the history of ancient philosophy. In this commentary, Simplicius aimed to demonstrate the harmony of doctrines presented by the Presocratic philosophers, both in the physical and metaphysical realms. However, his work has been largely overlooked, partly due to the dominance of the Vorsokratiker collection as the standard source for Presocratic material. This neglect is also attributed to Simplicius being a late Neoplatonist and a commentator, which led to simplistic assessments of his interpretations. Despite being dismissed as derivative and his interpretations considered anachronistic, Simplicius' commentaries and quotations of the Presocratic authors are valuable sources for understanding their philosophies. His work cannot be separated from his interpretations, and their examination can provide important insights into the context and focus of the Presocratics' ideas. While Simplicius employs Neoplatonic concepts in his interpretations, dismissing them solely on this basis overlooks the depth and philological rigor present in his work. Rejecting his interpretations on these grounds may hinder a comprehensive understanding of the Presocratic philosophers and their contributions to ancient philosophy. [introduction]","btype":1,"date":"1983","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oMg5HcpRdXBRWKI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":381,"full_name":"Perry, Bruce M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1404,"pubplace":"University of Washington","publisher":"","series":"Ph.D. Dissertation","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1983]}

La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'Épictète. Addenda et Corrigenda, 1983
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut
Title La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'Épictète. Addenda et Corrigenda
Type Article
Language French
Date 1983
Journal Revue d'histoire des textes
Volume 11
Pages 387-395
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The present study, as the title indicates, brings some supplementary information and minor corrections to my article on La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le « Manuel » d'Épictète, which appeared in volume VIII (1978) if the Revue d'Histoire des Textes (pp. 1-108). As part of these addenda, I have identified two new Greek texts, contained in the Neapolitans III. B. 12 : one fragment of Aristotle's Metaphysics, and another fragment of the commentary by Simplicius on Aristotle's De caelo ; each of these fragments is the length of a quaternion. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1496","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1496,"authors_free":[{"id":2596,"entry_id":1496,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Addenda et Corrigenda","main_title":{"title":"La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Addenda et Corrigenda"},"abstract":"The present study, as the title indicates, brings some supplementary information and minor corrections to my article on La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le \u00ab Manuel \u00bb d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, which appeared in volume VIII (1978) if\r\nthe Revue d'Histoire des Textes (pp. 1-108). As part of these addenda, I have identified two new Greek texts, contained in the Neapolitans III. B. 12 : one fragment of Aristotle's Metaphysics, and another fragment of the commentary by Simplicius on Aristotle's De caelo ; each of these fragments is the length of a quaternion. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IyOsWDpihx7t4Q1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1496,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d'histoire des textes","volume":"11","issue":"","pages":"387-395"}},"sort":[1983]}

La taille et la forme des atomes dans les systèmes de Démocrite et d'Épicure («Préjugé» et «présupposé» en histoire de la philosophie), 1982
By: O'Brien, Denis
Title La taille et la forme des atomes dans les systèmes de Démocrite et d'Épicure («Préjugé» et «présupposé» en histoire de la philosophie)
Type Article
Language French
Date 1982
Journal Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'Étranger
Volume 172
Issue 2
Pages 187-203
Categories no categories
Author(s) O'Brien, Denis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Qu'on n'aille pas en conclure que nous suivons aveuglément tout propos du Stagirite. Une observation permettra d'atténuer la valeur de son témoignage et de nuancer la conclusion à laquelle nous sommes arrivés jusqu'ici. Selon l'hypothèse élaborée ci-dessus, Démocrite et Épicure ne se seraient pas opposés sur la question de la grandeur des atomes. Pour l'un et l'autre philosophe, la gamme des grandeurs aura été en effet finie. Mais scrutons de plus près les deux thèses concernant la forme des atomes. Épicure précise que les variétés de forme sont, non pas « infinies », mais « insaisissables » (ἀπερίληπτοι). Quant à Démocrite et à Leucippe, Aristote affirme deux fois que les variétés de forme sont « infinies », d'une part en parlant de la multiplicité « infinie » des atomes, d'autre part en opposant la théorie de Leucippe à celle de Platon. En revanche, lorsqu'il présente le système atomiste dans le fragment Sur Démocrite, les différences de forme sont dites, non plus « infinies », mais « innombrables » (ἀναρίθμητος). À en juger d'après l'Index de Bonitz, ce dernier terme est un hapax dans l'œuvre d'Aristote. S'ensuit-il qu'il soit, sinon un vocable d'emprunt, du moins un terme transposé, plus proche de l'expression originale de Démocrite ? Mais qu'est-ce qui sépare alors la doctrine des Abdéritains et celle d'Épicure ? Où passe la distinction entre différences « innombrables » (Démocrite) et différences « insaisissables » (Épicure) ? Un dernier paradoxe semble poindre : on peut en effet se demander si, en refusant l'hypothèse d'une variété infinie de formes, Épicure ne s'opposait pas à la formulation qu'en avait donnée Aristote, bien plus qu'il ne songeait à rectifier la théorie de Démocrite. Mais nous effleurons ici un problème nouveau, celui de l'élaboration progressive des notions d'infini et de fini ; impossible de l'approfondir sans balayer les « préjugés » et les « présupposés » qui, sur ce point aussi, nous séparent des notions primitives par une proximité illusoire. Problème trop vaste pour qu'on puisse l'aborder dans cet article. [conclusion 201-203]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1101","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1101,"authors_free":[{"id":1664,"entry_id":1101,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O'Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O'Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La taille et la forme des atomes dans les syst\u00e8mes de D\u00e9mocrite et d'\u00c9picure (\u00abPr\u00e9jug\u00e9\u00bb et \u00abpr\u00e9suppos\u00e9\u00bb en histoire de la philosophie)","main_title":{"title":"La taille et la forme des atomes dans les syst\u00e8mes de D\u00e9mocrite et d'\u00c9picure (\u00abPr\u00e9jug\u00e9\u00bb et \u00abpr\u00e9suppos\u00e9\u00bb en histoire de la philosophie)"},"abstract":"Qu'on n'aille pas en conclure que nous suivons aveugl\u00e9ment tout propos du Stagirite. Une observation permettra d'att\u00e9nuer la valeur de son t\u00e9moignage et de nuancer la conclusion \u00e0 laquelle nous sommes arriv\u00e9s jusqu'ici.\r\n\r\nSelon l'hypoth\u00e8se \u00e9labor\u00e9e ci-dessus, D\u00e9mocrite et \u00c9picure ne se seraient pas oppos\u00e9s sur la question de la grandeur des atomes. Pour l'un et l'autre philosophe, la gamme des grandeurs aura \u00e9t\u00e9 en effet finie. Mais scrutons de plus pr\u00e8s les deux th\u00e8ses concernant la forme des atomes. \u00c9picure pr\u00e9cise que les vari\u00e9t\u00e9s de forme sont, non pas \u00ab infinies \u00bb, mais \u00ab insaisissables \u00bb (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9). Quant \u00e0 D\u00e9mocrite et \u00e0 Leucippe, Aristote affirme deux fois que les vari\u00e9t\u00e9s de forme sont \u00ab infinies \u00bb, d'une part en parlant de la multiplicit\u00e9 \u00ab infinie \u00bb des atomes, d'autre part en opposant la th\u00e9orie de Leucippe \u00e0 celle de Platon.\r\n\r\nEn revanche, lorsqu'il pr\u00e9sente le syst\u00e8me atomiste dans le fragment Sur D\u00e9mocrite, les diff\u00e9rences de forme sont dites, non plus \u00ab infinies \u00bb, mais \u00ab innombrables \u00bb (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2).\r\n\r\n\u00c0 en juger d'apr\u00e8s l'Index de Bonitz, ce dernier terme est un hapax dans l'\u0153uvre d'Aristote. S'ensuit-il qu'il soit, sinon un vocable d'emprunt, du moins un terme transpos\u00e9, plus proche de l'expression originale de D\u00e9mocrite ?\r\n\r\nMais qu'est-ce qui s\u00e9pare alors la doctrine des Abd\u00e9ritains et celle d'\u00c9picure ? O\u00f9 passe la distinction entre diff\u00e9rences \u00ab innombrables \u00bb (D\u00e9mocrite) et diff\u00e9rences \u00ab insaisissables \u00bb (\u00c9picure) ?\r\n\r\nUn dernier paradoxe semble poindre : on peut en effet se demander si, en refusant l'hypoth\u00e8se d'une vari\u00e9t\u00e9 infinie de formes, \u00c9picure ne s'opposait pas \u00e0 la formulation qu'en avait donn\u00e9e Aristote, bien plus qu'il ne songeait \u00e0 rectifier la th\u00e9orie de D\u00e9mocrite.\r\n\r\nMais nous effleurons ici un probl\u00e8me nouveau, celui de l'\u00e9laboration progressive des notions d'infini et de fini ; impossible de l'approfondir sans balayer les \u00ab pr\u00e9jug\u00e9s \u00bb et les \u00ab pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s \u00bb qui, sur ce point aussi, nous s\u00e9parent des notions primitives par une proximit\u00e9 illusoire.\r\n\r\nProbl\u00e8me trop vaste pour qu'on puisse l'aborder dans cet article. [conclusion 201-203]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AhK7pfqowUhUex4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1101,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'\u00c9tranger","volume":"172","issue":"2","pages":"187-203"}},"sort":[1982]}

Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium, 1982
By: Mansfeld, Jaap
Title Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium
Type Article
Language English
Date 1982
Journal Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume 125
Issue 1
Pages 1-24
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mansfeld, Jaap
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Of Zeno's four arguments against the reality of motion transmitted by Aristotle, the fourth, the so-called Stadium (Vors. 29 A 28), is perhaps the most difficult. The difficulties involved are of two sorts: philological problems on the one hand, questions of a philosophical nature on the other. In the present paper, I am concerned with the first sort, not the second, although I shall perhaps not be successful in keeping the latter out altogether. A study of the philosophical discussions to be found in the learned literature, however, has convinced me that the first problem to be solved is that of the interpretation of Aristotle's text. There is a general feeling that Aristotle, in reporting and arguing against Zeno's argument, somehow failed. I believe his report is sufficiently clear; although Aristotle's argument contra Zeno is not, perhaps, satisfactory in every respect, Zeno's original paradox can be found in his text. I shall attempt to show that, in order to find it, we must begin by taking both the topography of the stadium and the position of the bodies in it into account, which several recent reconstructions, however satisfactory they may appear to be in other respects, fail to do. I wish to start from a consideration concerned with a non-philosophical feature the four arguments against motion have in common: the fact that they are fun. They undoubtedly are very serious arguments, but they were also written in order to épater le bourgeois. The first argument proves that a runner will never get to the end of the stadium: once he has got halfway, he still has to get halfway the remaining half, halfway the remaining quarter, and so on, in infinitum. The second proves that swift-footed Achilles will never catch up with the slowest thing on earth, because the distance in between, although constantly diminishing, forever remains proportionally the same. The third proves that a flying arrow, which occupies a place equal to its own size, is at rest, because it does not move at the place where it is, and not at the place where it is not either. The first three arguments, then, are genuine and rather hilarious paradoxes. They reveal Zeno as a wit. To ask what is so funny about the fourth argument against motion, therefore, is a legitimate question. Yet I have hardly ever read an account of the fourth paradox which brought out the inevitable smile fetched by the others. Instead, one finds complicated discussions about infinite divisibility versus discrete or granular structure, and endless shufflings and reshufflings of the runners on the course. There are several reasons for this unfortunate situation, the most important of which, I believe, is that both ancient commentators (to judge from Simplicius' account) and modern scholars have failed to distinguish (or to distinguish sufficiently) between Zeno's paradox on the one hand and Aristotle's refutation on the other. Another reason is that Aristotle's text is plagued in parts with variae lectiones that seriously affect the meaning of the argument as a whole. Some of these readings enjoy the support of Simplicius, but this does not prove them right, for Simplicius points out one passage where Alexander of Aphrodisias followed a reading different from that accepted by himself and which, as he believes, Alexander "found in some manuscripts" (ἐν ταῖς ἀντιγράφοις εὗρον, In Phys. 1017, 19). Furthermore, as Simplicius likewise tells us (In Phys. 1019, 27–31), Alexander proposed to interpolate Phys. Z 9, 240a15-16 λαὸν-φρήσιν immediately after 240a11 διελῆλυθεν. Alexander, then, found it difficult to understand the argument of the text as transmitted (which, at at least one other point, differed from Simplicius’). Simplicius' lengthy reconstruction of the fourth argument against motion and of Aristotle's critique thereof (In Phys. 1016, 7–1020, 6, printed—as far as 1019, 9—by Lee as T 36) appears to have no other authority than his own, for he differs from Alexander, and the only other person cited (Eudemus, Fr. 106 Wehrli) is only adduced for points which do not affect the interpretation of the more difficult parts of Phys. Z 9, 239b33–240a17. Although scholars have dealt rather freely with Simplicius' commentary, using only those sections which fit their own views, it should be acknowledged that his reconstruction of the paradox, and especially his diagram of the stadium featuring three rows of runners, have been of crucial importance to the modern history of interpretation of Zeno's argument. I believe, however, that Simplicius (and perhaps Alexander as well) already made the fundamental mistake of failing to distinguish in the proper way between Zeno's paradox and Aristotle's refutation, although in Simplicius' case this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that he apparently noticed the joke of Zeno's argument (one doesn’t know if Alexander did). We are not bound, then, to follow Simplicius all, or even half the way, and need not even accept his guidance as to the choice to be made among the variae lectiones. These different readings themselves, so it seems, reflect different ancient interpretations of Aristotle's exposition. In some manuscripts, interpretamenta may have got into the text (as at 240a6), or even have ousted other, more difficult readings (as at 240a11). [introduction p. 1-3]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1108","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1108,"authors_free":[{"id":2070,"entry_id":1108,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium","main_title":{"title":"Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium"},"abstract":"Of Zeno's four arguments against the reality of motion transmitted by Aristotle, the fourth, the so-called Stadium (Vors. 29 A 28), is perhaps the most difficult. The difficulties involved are of two sorts: philological problems on the one hand, questions of a philosophical nature on the other. In the present paper, I am concerned with the first sort, not the second, although I shall perhaps not be successful in keeping the latter out altogether. A study of the philosophical discussions to be found in the learned literature, however, has convinced me that the first problem to be solved is that of the interpretation of Aristotle's text. There is a general feeling that Aristotle, in reporting and arguing against Zeno's argument, somehow failed. I believe his report is sufficiently clear; although Aristotle's argument contra Zeno is not, perhaps, satisfactory in every respect, Zeno's original paradox can be found in his text. I shall attempt to show that, in order to find it, we must begin by taking both the topography of the stadium and the position of the bodies in it into account, which several recent reconstructions, however satisfactory they may appear to be in other respects, fail to do.\r\n\r\nI wish to start from a consideration concerned with a non-philosophical feature the four arguments against motion have in common: the fact that they are fun. They undoubtedly are very serious arguments, but they were also written in order to \u00e9pater le bourgeois. The first argument proves that a runner will never get to the end of the stadium: once he has got halfway, he still has to get halfway the remaining half, halfway the remaining quarter, and so on, in infinitum. The second proves that swift-footed Achilles will never catch up with the slowest thing on earth, because the distance in between, although constantly diminishing, forever remains proportionally the same. The third proves that a flying arrow, which occupies a place equal to its own size, is at rest, because it does not move at the place where it is, and not at the place where it is not either.\r\n\r\nThe first three arguments, then, are genuine and rather hilarious paradoxes. They reveal Zeno as a wit. To ask what is so funny about the fourth argument against motion, therefore, is a legitimate question. Yet I have hardly ever read an account of the fourth paradox which brought out the inevitable smile fetched by the others. Instead, one finds complicated discussions about infinite divisibility versus discrete or granular structure, and endless shufflings and reshufflings of the runners on the course. There are several reasons for this unfortunate situation, the most important of which, I believe, is that both ancient commentators (to judge from Simplicius' account) and modern scholars have failed to distinguish (or to distinguish sufficiently) between Zeno's paradox on the one hand and Aristotle's refutation on the other. Another reason is that Aristotle's text is plagued in parts with variae lectiones that seriously affect the meaning of the argument as a whole. Some of these readings enjoy the support of Simplicius, but this does not prove them right, for Simplicius points out one passage where Alexander of Aphrodisias followed a reading different from that accepted by himself and which, as he believes, Alexander \"found in some manuscripts\" (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, In Phys. 1017, 19). Furthermore, as Simplicius likewise tells us (In Phys. 1019, 27\u201331), Alexander proposed to interpolate Phys. Z 9, 240a15-16 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd-\u03c6\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd immediately after 240a11 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd. Alexander, then, found it difficult to understand the argument of the text as transmitted (which, at at least one other point, differed from Simplicius\u2019). Simplicius' lengthy reconstruction of the fourth argument against motion and of Aristotle's critique thereof (In Phys. 1016, 7\u20131020, 6, printed\u2014as far as 1019, 9\u2014by Lee as T 36) appears to have no other authority than his own, for he differs from Alexander, and the only other person cited (Eudemus, Fr. 106 Wehrli) is only adduced for points which do not affect the interpretation of the more difficult parts of Phys. Z 9, 239b33\u2013240a17.\r\n\r\nAlthough scholars have dealt rather freely with Simplicius' commentary, using only those sections which fit their own views, it should be acknowledged that his reconstruction of the paradox, and especially his diagram of the stadium featuring three rows of runners, have been of crucial importance to the modern history of interpretation of Zeno's argument. I believe, however, that Simplicius (and perhaps Alexander as well) already made the fundamental mistake of failing to distinguish in the proper way between Zeno's paradox and Aristotle's refutation, although in Simplicius' case this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that he apparently noticed the joke of Zeno's argument (one doesn\u2019t know if Alexander did). We are not bound, then, to follow Simplicius all, or even half the way, and need not even accept his guidance as to the choice to be made among the variae lectiones. These different readings themselves, so it seems, reflect different ancient interpretations of Aristotle's exposition. In some manuscripts, interpretamenta may have got into the text (as at 240a6), or even have ousted other, more difficult readings (as at 240a11). [introduction p. 1-3]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y2jILmoDyxD389y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1108,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"125","issue":"1","pages":"1-24"}},"sort":[1982]}

Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism, 1982
By: Mahoney, Edward P., O'Meara, Dominic J. (Ed.)
Title Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1982
Published in Neoplatonism and Christian thought
Pages 169-177
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mahoney, Edward P.
Editor(s) O'Meara, Dominic J.
Translator(s)
In this paper I should like to share with my fellow students of Neoplatonism the results of researches in medieval and Renaissance Aristotelianism that have brought to light interesting ways in which Neoplatonism came to have a special impact on the development of Renaissance Aristotelianism. It is certainly not my aim to exclude other possible ways in which Neoplatonism had its effect, but I do believe that historians of ancient Neoplatonism will themselves be surprised to learn of the pervasiveness of certain themes among supposed proponents of Aris­totle during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The two topics on which I wish to concentrate are (1) the influence on late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Aristotelianism of two late ancient commentators on Aristotle, namely, Themistius <317—388) and Simplicius (Jl. 530),1 and (2) a conceptual scheme of metaphysical hierarchy whose origins are clearly Neoplatonic and which was constantly debated during the same period. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1111","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1111,"authors_free":[{"id":1678,"entry_id":1111,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":459,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","free_first_name":"Edward P.","free_last_name":"Mahoney","norm_person":{"id":459,"first_name":"Edward P.","last_name":"Mahoney","full_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123905818","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1679,"entry_id":1111,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism"},"abstract":"In this paper I should like to share with my fellow students of Neoplatonism the results of researches in medieval and Renaissance Aristotelianism that have brought to light interesting ways in which Neoplatonism came to have a special impact on the development of Renaissance Aristotelianism. It is certainly not my aim to exclude other possible ways in which Neoplatonism had its effect, but I do believe that historians of ancient Neoplatonism will themselves be surprised to learn of the pervasiveness of certain themes among supposed proponents of Aris\u00adtotle during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The two topics on which I wish to concentrate are (1) the influence on late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Aristotelianism of two late ancient commentators on Aristotle, namely, Themistius <317\u2014388) and Simplicius (Jl. 530),1 and (2) a conceptual scheme of metaphysical hierarchy whose origins are clearly Neoplatonic and which was constantly debated during the same period. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2eyv4WzmHFlkenV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":459,"full_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1111,"section_of":12,"pages":"169-177","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":12,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"O'Meara1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines\u2014classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8tb5ZmmacZhgjDn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":12,"pubplace":"Albany","publisher":"State University of New York Press","series":"Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1982]}

Zeno on Plurality, 1982
By: Makin, Stephen
Title Zeno on Plurality
Type Article
Language English
Date 1982
Journal Phronesis
Volume 27
Issue 3
Pages 223-238
Categories no categories
Author(s) Makin, Stephen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
We want to discuss some Eleatic arguments against plurality, which are of interest both in themselves and as precursors of Atomist thought. The arguments to be considered are from Zeno. We will have two guides in interpreting the arguments. First, they should be such that Atomist theory provides a plausible response to them; second, they should pose no threat to the Eleatic theory. [introduction p. 223]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"730","_score":null,"_source":{"id":730,"authors_free":[{"id":1093,"entry_id":730,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":460,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Makin, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Makin","norm_person":{"id":460,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Makin","full_name":"Makin, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Zeno on Plurality","main_title":{"title":"Zeno on Plurality"},"abstract":" We want to \r\ndiscuss some Eleatic arguments against plurality, which are of interest \r\nboth in themselves and as precursors of Atomist thought. The arguments to \r\nbe considered are from Zeno. \r\nWe will have two guides in interpreting the arguments. First, they should \r\nbe such that Atomist theory provides a plausible response to them; second, \r\nthey should pose no threat to the Eleatic theory. [introduction p. 223]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wOq1opqPtXhX1E6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":460,"full_name":"Makin, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":730,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"27","issue":"3","pages":"223-238"}},"sort":[1982]}

Simplikios: Über die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore, 1982
By: Sonderegger, Erwin, Simplicius
Title Simplikios: Über die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore
Type Monograph
Language German
Date 1982
Publication Place Göttingen
Publisher Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
Series Hypomnemata
Volume 70
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sonderegger, Erwin , Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In dieser Arbeit sollen die Gedanken des Simplikios zum Thema ,Zeit‘ nachgedacht und dadurch einem weiteren Kreis zugänglich gemacht wer¬den. Als Bezugstext dieses Nachdenkens wird das sogenannte ,Corollarium de tempore gewählt. Dieser Text am Ende der ersten Hälfte des Physik¬kommentars von Simplikios bildet eine Art Anhang zum Kommentar der Zeitabhandlung. An dieser Stelle trägt Simplikios ausdrücklich seine eigenen Gedanken zum Thema Zeit vor. In dem hier geübten Nach¬denken soll der Gedanke des Simplikios in seiner ganzen Entfaltung wiederholt werden. Wenn die vorliegende Arbeit dem Verständnis dieses Textes geholfen und dadurch einen Einblick in die Sache möglich ge¬ macht hat, dann hat sie ihren Zweck erfüllt.Das Hauptinteresse gilt also dem Gedanken des Simplikios in seinem eigenen Wert und Gehalt, weniger seiner philosophiegeschichtlichen Ein¬ordnung. Denn um sagen zu können, wo und wie dieser Gedanke einzu¬ordnen ist, müßte schon klar sein, was in ihm gedacht ist. Da dies nicht der Fall ist, ist die verlangte Einordnung noch gar nicht möglich. Ebenso unmöglich aber ist es, einen Gedanken ohne alle Voraussetzungen zu verstehen. Jedes Verstehen geht von zum Teil jedem menschlichen Tun, zum Teil dem Denken spezifischen Voraussetzungen aus. Auch diese Ar¬beit enthält deshalb mannigfache Voraussetzungen allgemeinster Art, auf die hier nicht eingegangen werden kann, dann aber auch Voraussetzungen spezieller Art, besonders aus dem Gebiet der Literatur- und der Geistes¬geschichte. Da diese weder selbstverständlich noch für alle, die an ähnliehen Themen arbeiten, gleich sind, sollen die Voraussetzungen dieser Arbeit in einer Einführung vorgestellt werden. Dies geschieht in der Hoffnung, daß dadurch die einzelnen Äußerungen des Kommentars leichter verständlich werden.Die Themen dieser Einführung ergeben sich aus folgenden Überlegungen. Das Werk des Simplikios hat die literarische Form eines Kommentars.Es handelt sich dabei aber nicht um einen Kommentar im modernen Sinne des Wortes, denn es ist nicht sein Zweck, in der Form gesammel¬ter Anmerkungen ein .technisches Hilfsmittel zu sein, sondern Kom¬mentieren heißt für Simplikios Philosophieren. Auf dieses Kommentar¬verständnis ist also in der Einführung näher einzugehen. [Introduction p. 13-14]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"235","_score":null,"_source":{"id":235,"authors_free":[{"id":301,"entry_id":235,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":322,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sonderegger, Erwin","free_first_name":"Erwin","free_last_name":"Sonderegger","norm_person":{"id":322,"first_name":"Erwin","last_name":"Sonderegger","full_name":"Sonderegger, Erwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130152013","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2313,"entry_id":235,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore","main_title":{"title":"Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore"},"abstract":"In dieser Arbeit sollen die Gedanken des Simplikios zum Thema ,Zeit\u2018 nachgedacht und dadurch einem weiteren Kreis zug\u00e4nglich gemacht wer\u00acden. Als Bezugstext dieses Nachdenkens wird das sogenannte ,Corollarium de tempore gew\u00e4hlt. Dieser Text am Ende der ersten H\u00e4lfte des Physik\u00ackommentars von Simplikios bildet eine Art Anhang zum Kommentar der Zeitabhandlung. An dieser Stelle tr\u00e4gt Simplikios ausdr\u00fccklich seine \r\neigenen Gedanken zum Thema Zeit vor. In dem hier ge\u00fcbten Nach\u00acdenken soll der Gedanke des Simplikios in seiner ganzen Entfaltung wiederholt werden. Wenn die vorliegende Arbeit dem Verst\u00e4ndnis dieses Textes geholfen und dadurch einen Einblick in die Sache m\u00f6glich ge\u00ac\r\nmacht hat, dann hat sie ihren Zweck erf\u00fcllt.Das Hauptinteresse gilt also dem Gedanken des Simplikios in seinem eigenen Wert und Gehalt, weniger seiner philosophiegeschichtlichen Ein\u00acordnung. Denn um sagen zu k\u00f6nnen, wo und wie dieser Gedanke einzu\u00acordnen ist, m\u00fc\u00dfte schon klar sein, was in ihm gedacht ist. Da dies nicht der Fall ist, ist die verlangte Einordnung noch gar nicht m\u00f6glich. Ebenso unm\u00f6glich aber ist es, einen Gedanken ohne alle Voraussetzungen zu verstehen. Jedes Verstehen geht von zum Teil jedem menschlichen Tun, zum Teil dem Denken spezifischen Voraussetzungen aus. Auch diese Ar\u00acbeit enth\u00e4lt deshalb mannigfache Voraussetzungen allgemeinster Art, auf die hier nicht eingegangen werden kann, dann aber auch Voraussetzungen spezieller Art, besonders aus dem Gebiet der Literatur- und der Geistes\u00acgeschichte. Da diese weder selbstverst\u00e4ndlich noch f\u00fcr alle, die an \u00e4hnliehen Themen arbeiten, gleich sind, sollen die Voraussetzungen dieser Arbeit in einer Einf\u00fchrung vorgestellt werden. Dies geschieht in der Hoffnung, da\u00df dadurch die einzelnen \u00c4u\u00dferungen des Kommentars leichter verst\u00e4ndlich werden.Die Themen dieser Einf\u00fchrung ergeben sich aus folgenden \u00dcberlegungen. \r\nDas Werk des Simplikios hat die literarische Form eines Kommentars.Es handelt sich dabei aber nicht um einen Kommentar im modernen Sinne des Wortes, denn es ist nicht sein Zweck, in der Form gesammel\u00acter Anmerkungen ein .technisches Hilfsmittel zu sein, sondern Kom\u00acmentieren hei\u00dft f\u00fcr Simplikios Philosophieren. Auf dieses Kommentar\u00acverst\u00e4ndnis ist also in der Einf\u00fchrung n\u00e4her einzugehen. [Introduction p. 13-14]","btype":1,"date":"1982","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dkf2hbbbbjfRfuu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":322,"full_name":"Sonderegger, Erwin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":235,"pubplace":"G\u00f6ttingen","publisher":"Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht","series":"Hypomnemata","volume":"70","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1982]}

Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux préliminaires et index grec complet, 1982
By: Brisson, Luc (Ed.), Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile (Ed.), Goulet, Richard (Ed.), O’Brien, Denis (Ed.)
Title Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux préliminaires et index grec complet
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1982
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Vrin
Series Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquité classique
Volume 6
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Brisson, Luc , Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile , Goulet, Richard , O’Brien, Denis
Translator(s)
Il est apparu que le dernier mot n'avait pas été dit sur ce texte de Porphyre, capital pour notre connaissance de la personne et de l'école de Plotin, et plus largement de la vie philosophique au IIIe siècle de notre ère. Car on est en présence d'un document dont la simplicité est illusoire : la traduction même en est hérissée de difficultés, qui, dans nombre de cas, semblent avoir jusqu'ici échappé à l'attention ; d'autre part, la valeur historique de cette biographie, indubitable en apparence, ne cesse en vérité de faire problème par suite de l'application de Porphyre à se donner en toute circonstance le beau rôle. De telles considérations, et d'autres encore, ont donné à penser que l'on ne perdrait pas son temps en reprenant l'étude de ce vieux texte sur des bases entièrement nouvelles. [official abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"377","_score":null,"_source":{"id":377,"authors_free":[{"id":1984,"entry_id":377,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":18,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":{"id":18,"first_name":"Luc","last_name":"Brisson","full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114433259","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1985,"entry_id":377,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile ","free_last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1986,"entry_id":377,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1987,"entry_id":377,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O\u2019Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O\u2019Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux pr\u00e9liminaires et index grec complet","main_title":{"title":"Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux pr\u00e9liminaires et index grec complet"},"abstract":"Il est apparu que le dernier mot n'avait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 dit sur ce texte de Porphyre, capital pour notre connaissance de la personne et de l'\u00e9cole de Plotin, et plus largement de la vie philosophique au IIIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re. Car on est en pr\u00e9sence d'un document dont la simplicit\u00e9 est illusoire : la traduction m\u00eame en est h\u00e9riss\u00e9e de difficult\u00e9s, qui, dans nombre de cas, semblent avoir jusqu'ici \u00e9chapp\u00e9 \u00e0 l'attention ; d'autre part, la valeur historique de cette biographie, indubitable en apparence, ne cesse en v\u00e9rit\u00e9 de faire probl\u00e8me par suite de l'application de Porphyre \u00e0 se donner en toute circonstance le beau r\u00f4le.\r\nDe telles consid\u00e9rations, et d'autres encore, ont donn\u00e9 \u00e0 penser que l'on ne perdrait pas son temps en reprenant l'\u00e9tude de ce vieux texte sur des bases enti\u00e8rement nouvelles. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1982","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dg4i4rIRJWOzIZa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":18,"full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":377,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"6","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1982]}

Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982, 1982
By: Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Lloyd, Antony C. (Ed.)
Title Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1982
Publication Place Liverpool
Publisher Liverpool University Press
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Lloyd, Antony C.
Translator(s)
This short and not inexpensive book contains the papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool on 15-16 April 1982. There are four papers dealing in turn with 'Monad and Dyad as Cosmic Principles in Syrianus' by A. D. R. Sheppard; 'Procession and Division in Proclus' by A. C. Lloyd; 'La doctrine de Simplicius sur l'âme raisonnable humaine dans le Commentaire sur le manuel d'Epictète' by I. Hadot, and fourthly 'The Psychology of (?) Simplicius' Commentary on the De anima' by H. J. Blumenthal. The other participants in the colloquium must have made it a memorable and worthwhile, though rather short-lived occasion. The foremost living experts in the field of later Platonism were present, including A. H. Armstrong, P. Hadot, J. Rist, and A. Smith. Arguably the most interesting feature of the collection is the difference of opinion among at least two of the participants about the validity of C. G. Steel's 'The changing self: a study of the soul in later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius, and Priscianus' (cf. the review by A. Smith in JHS 100 [1980]). There, it is argued that the three authors mentioned were the only later Platonists to teach the mutability as distinct from the fall of the soul. So it is well enough known that Proclus dissented from Plotinus in his assertion at e.g. Elements 211 that the soul completely falls. But it is also argued that Proclus dissented from Iamblichus in denying the changeableness of the fallen soul. With Steel's hypothesis, Blumenthal is in a large measure of agreement, whereas Ilsetraut Hadot feels that such a view is oversimplified. She suggests that even Plotinus is prepared to admit a greater degree of alteration in the soul than some exegetes allow for. It must be said in defense of her position that despite the evidence of Ennead 4.8.8 and 4.1, there are disturbing passages at 4.4.3 and 5.1.1 which challenge a too simple evaluation of Plotinus. In this particular collection, the issue is rather over the interpretation of Simplicius, De Anima 220.2-4 (cf. p. 91). Blumenthal argues that Simplicius' language need only mean that the soul has a temporary change. Against such an interpretation, Hadot argues that it overlooks the fact that Simplicius was a pupil of Damascius and he certainly believed in the change of the human soul. Perhaps, though, the views are not as far apart as the foregoing remarks may suggest. After all, it is hard to be supposed that the change in the soul argued for by Iamblichus and his followers was in itself irreversible. The whole Platonist school had to offer some sort of rationale for the obvious fact of the weakness and sinfulness of the human being. Whether one talks of 'fall', 'change', or 'weakness' seems hardly to matter. Nor is the problem restricted to pagans. A few apt quotations from St. Augustine illustrate the universal nature of the problem which faces any thinker who is prepared to take seriously both the goodness of the human soul and the existence of evil. (Review by Anthony Meredith)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"133","_score":null,"_source":{"id":133,"authors_free":[{"id":164,"entry_id":133,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":165,"entry_id":133,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":465,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}}],"entry_title":"Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982","main_title":{"title":"Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982"},"abstract":"This short and not inexpensive book contains the papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool on 15-16 April 1982. There are four papers dealing in turn with 'Monad and Dyad as Cosmic Principles in Syrianus' by A. D. R. Sheppard; 'Procession and Division in Proclus' by A. C. Lloyd; 'La doctrine de Simplicius sur l'\u00e2me raisonnable humaine dans le Commentaire sur le manuel d'Epict\u00e8te' by I. Hadot, and fourthly 'The Psychology of (?) Simplicius' Commentary on the De anima' by H. J. Blumenthal. The other participants in the colloquium must have made it a memorable and worthwhile, though rather short-lived occasion. The foremost living experts in the field of later Platonism were present, including A. H. Armstrong, P. Hadot, J. Rist, and A. Smith.\r\nArguably the most interesting feature of the collection is the difference of opinion among at least two of the participants about the validity of C. G. Steel's 'The changing self: a study of the soul in later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius, and Priscianus' (cf. the review by A. Smith in JHS 100 [1980]). There, it is argued that the three authors mentioned were the only later Platonists to teach the mutability as distinct from the fall of the soul. So it is well enough known that Proclus dissented from Plotinus in his assertion at e.g. Elements 211 that the soul completely falls. But it is also argued that Proclus dissented from Iamblichus in denying the changeableness of the fallen soul. With Steel's hypothesis, Blumenthal is in a large measure of agreement, whereas Ilsetraut Hadot feels that such a view is oversimplified. She suggests that even Plotinus is prepared to admit a greater degree of alteration in the soul than some exegetes allow for. It must be said in defense of her position that despite the evidence of Ennead 4.8.8 and 4.1, there are disturbing passages at 4.4.3 and 5.1.1 which challenge a too simple evaluation of Plotinus. In this particular collection, the issue is rather over the interpretation of Simplicius, De Anima 220.2-4 (cf. p. 91). Blumenthal argues that Simplicius' language need only mean that the soul has a temporary change. Against such an interpretation, Hadot argues that it overlooks the fact that Simplicius was a pupil of Damascius and he certainly believed in the change of the human soul. Perhaps, though, the views are not as far apart as the foregoing remarks may suggest. After all, it is hard to be supposed that the change in the soul argued for by Iamblichus and his followers was in itself irreversible. The whole Platonist school had to offer some sort of rationale for the obvious fact of the weakness and sinfulness of the human being. Whether one talks of 'fall', 'change', or 'weakness' seems hardly to matter. Nor is the problem restricted to pagans. A few apt quotations from St. Augustine illustrate the universal nature of the problem which faces any thinker who is prepared to take seriously both the goodness of the human soul and the existence of evil. (Review by Anthony Meredith)","btype":4,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lObq1J6nadR8CdJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":465,"full_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":133,"pubplace":"Liverpool","publisher":"Liverpool University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1982]}

Neoplatonism and Christian thought, 1982
By: O'Meara, Dominic, J. (Ed.)
Title Neoplatonism and Christian thought
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1982
Publication Place Albany
Publisher State University of New York Press
Series Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern
Volume 3
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) O'Meara, Dominic, J.
Translator(s)
In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines—classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"12","_score":null,"_source":{"id":12,"authors_free":[{"id":2390,"entry_id":12,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic, J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought"},"abstract":"In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines\u2014classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]","btype":4,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8tb5ZmmacZhgjDn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":12,"pubplace":"Albany","publisher":"State University of New York Press","series":"Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1982]}

Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes, 1982
By: Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile, Brisson, Luc (Ed.), Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile (Ed.), Goulet, Richard (Ed.), O’Brien, Denis (Ed.)
Title Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1982
Published in Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux préliminaires et index grec complet
Pages 277-280
Categories no categories
Author(s) Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile
Editor(s) Brisson, Luc , Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile , Goulet, Richard , O’Brien, Denis
Translator(s)
Les écoles néoplatoniciennes postérieures ont établi un programme d’enseignement qu’on peut reconstituer dans ses grandes lignes. Voici quelles sont les principales étapes de ce cursus : a) Propédeutique morale : Étude de textes comme le Manuel d’Épictète et le Carmen aureum pythagoricien pour introduire la vie morale. Ces œuvres étaient souvent accompagnées de commentaires, notamment par Simplicius et Hiéroclès. b) Introduction générale à la philosophie : Basée sur l'Isagogè de Porphyre, cette étape proposait une définition et des divisions de la philosophie (théorétique et pratique), suivant un schéma attribué à Porphyre ou Andronicus. c) Étude préparatoire à Aristote : Lecture et commentaire de l'Isagogè comme introduction indispensable aux Catégories d’Aristote, en appliquant un cadre méthodologique précis avant d’entamer le commentaire. d) Introduction à Aristote : Les commentaires sur les Catégories soulevaient dix questions essentielles sur Aristote, incluant son style, la structure de ses écrits, et les qualités requises pour ses lecteurs et exégètes. e) Cycle d’études aristotéliciennes : Études couvrant logique, éthique, politique, physique et théologie sur une durée estimée à deux ou trois ans. Ce cycle préparait les étudiants à l’étude des dialogues platoniciens. f) Étude de Platon : Introduction systématique à Platon, incluant l’ordre de lecture des dialogues. Cette phase s’inspirait également des médio-platoniciens comme Albinus et Alcinoos. g) Oracles chaldaïques : Étudiés comme le sommet de la formation philosophique. Proclus et d’autres néoplatoniciens harmonisaient ces enseignements avec ceux de Platon. h) Poésie orphique : Considérée comme le niveau suprême, la poésie orphique, notamment les Hymnes, faisait l’objet de commentaires approfondis, particulièrement chez Proclus et Syrianus. [derived from the entire text]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"534","_score":null,"_source":{"id":534,"authors_free":[{"id":754,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile","free_last_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2105,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":18,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":{"id":18,"first_name":"Luc","last_name":"Brisson","full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114433259","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2106,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile ","free_last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2107,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2108,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O\u2019Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O\u2019Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes","main_title":{"title":"Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes"},"abstract":"Les \u00e9coles n\u00e9oplatoniciennes post\u00e9rieures ont \u00e9tabli un programme d\u2019enseignement qu\u2019on peut reconstituer dans ses grandes lignes. Voici quelles sont les principales \u00e9tapes de ce cursus : a) Prop\u00e9deutique morale : \u00c9tude de textes comme le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te et le Carmen aureum pythagoricien pour introduire la vie morale. Ces \u0153uvres \u00e9taient souvent accompagn\u00e9es de commentaires, notamment par Simplicius et Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s.\r\n\r\nb) Introduction g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 la philosophie : Bas\u00e9e sur l'Isagog\u00e8 de Porphyre, cette \u00e9tape proposait une d\u00e9finition et des divisions de la philosophie (th\u00e9or\u00e9tique et pratique), suivant un sch\u00e9ma attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Porphyre ou Andronicus.\r\n\r\nc) \u00c9tude pr\u00e9paratoire \u00e0 Aristote : Lecture et commentaire de l'Isagog\u00e8 comme introduction indispensable aux Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote, en appliquant un cadre m\u00e9thodologique pr\u00e9cis avant d\u2019entamer le commentaire.\r\n\r\nd) Introduction \u00e0 Aristote : Les commentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories soulevaient dix questions essentielles sur Aristote, incluant son style, la structure de ses \u00e9crits, et les qualit\u00e9s requises pour ses lecteurs et ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes.\r\n\r\ne) Cycle d\u2019\u00e9tudes aristot\u00e9liciennes : \u00c9tudes couvrant logique, \u00e9thique, politique, physique et th\u00e9ologie sur une dur\u00e9e estim\u00e9e \u00e0 deux ou trois ans. Ce cycle pr\u00e9parait les \u00e9tudiants \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des dialogues platoniciens.\r\n\r\nf) \u00c9tude de Platon : Introduction syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 Platon, incluant l\u2019ordre de lecture des dialogues. Cette phase s\u2019inspirait \u00e9galement des m\u00e9dio-platoniciens comme Albinus et Alcinoos.\r\n\r\ng) Oracles chalda\u00efques : \u00c9tudi\u00e9s comme le sommet de la formation philosophique. Proclus et d\u2019autres n\u00e9oplatoniciens harmonisaient ces enseignements avec ceux de Platon.\r\n\r\nh) Po\u00e9sie orphique : Consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme le niveau supr\u00eame, la po\u00e9sie orphique, notamment les Hymnes, faisait l\u2019objet de commentaires approfondis, particuli\u00e8rement chez Proclus et Syrianus. [derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"1982","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kPjIT5NBhbhdLeA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":18,"full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":534,"section_of":377,"pages":"277-280","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":377,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux pr\u00e9liminaires et index grec complet","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brisson1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1982","abstract":"Il est apparu que le dernier mot n'avait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 dit sur ce texte de Porphyre, capital pour notre connaissance de la personne et de l'\u00e9cole de Plotin, et plus largement de la vie philosophique au IIIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re. Car on est en pr\u00e9sence d'un document dont la simplicit\u00e9 est illusoire : la traduction m\u00eame en est h\u00e9riss\u00e9e de difficult\u00e9s, qui, dans nombre de cas, semblent avoir jusqu'ici \u00e9chapp\u00e9 \u00e0 l'attention ; d'autre part, la valeur historique de cette biographie, indubitable en apparence, ne cesse en v\u00e9rit\u00e9 de faire probl\u00e8me par suite de l'application de Porphyre \u00e0 se donner en toute circonstance le beau r\u00f4le.\r\nDe telles consid\u00e9rations, et d'autres encore, ont donn\u00e9 \u00e0 penser que l'on ne perdrait pas son temps en reprenant l'\u00e9tude de ce vieux texte sur des bases enti\u00e8rement nouvelles. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dg4i4rIRJWOzIZa","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":377,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"6","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1982]}

Simplikios in der arabischen Überlieferung, 1982
By: Gätje, Helmut
Title Simplikios in der arabischen Überlieferung
Type Article
Language German
Date 1982
Journal Der Islam; Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients
Volume 59
Pages 6-31
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gätje, Helmut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Wenn Simplikios in der philosophischen Tradition des Islams nicht zu einer so festen Größe geworden ist wie Alexander von Aphrodisias oder Themistios, so hängt das mit der historischen Stellung dieser Exegeten inner­halb der peripatetischen Schule zusammen. Ihnen gegenüber ist Simplikios nachgeboren. Auf der anderen Seite hat aber offenbar sein Zeitgenosse Johannes Philoponos, dem freilich im islamischen Bereich zu Unrecht eine Reihe medizinischer Werke zugeschrieben wurden, einen größeren Wider­hall gefunden, was wiederum mit Ausgangspunkt und Wegen der Überlie­ferung zusammenhängt. Wenn man dem Urteil Praechters folgt und in Simplikios einen der bedeutendsten Kommentatoren des Altertums sieht, so stehen diese Bewertung des Simplikios und seine Wirkung im Islam nicht im rechten Verhältnis zueinander. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"540","_score":null,"_source":{"id":540,"authors_free":[{"id":764,"entry_id":540,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":134,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"G\u00e4tje, Helmut ","free_first_name":"Helmut ","free_last_name":"G\u00e4tje","norm_person":{"id":134,"first_name":"Helmut ","last_name":"G\u00e4tje","full_name":"G\u00e4tje, Helmut ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1021419966","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplikios in der arabischen \u00dcberlieferung","main_title":{"title":"Simplikios in der arabischen \u00dcberlieferung"},"abstract":"Wenn Simplikios in der philosophischen Tradition des Islams nicht zu einer so festen Gr\u00f6\u00dfe geworden ist wie Alexander von Aphrodisias oder Themistios, so h\u00e4ngt das mit der historischen Stellung dieser Exegeten inner\u00adhalb der peripatetischen Schule zusammen. Ihnen gegen\u00fcber ist Simplikios nachgeboren. Auf der anderen Seite hat aber offenbar sein Zeitgenosse Johannes Philoponos, dem freilich im islamischen Bereich zu Unrecht eine Reihe medizinischer Werke zugeschrieben wurden, einen gr\u00f6\u00dferen Wider\u00adhall gefunden, was wiederum mit Ausgangspunkt und Wegen der \u00dcberlie\u00adferung zusammenh\u00e4ngt. Wenn man dem Urteil Praechters folgt und in Simplikios einen der bedeutendsten Kommentatoren des Altertums sieht, so stehen diese Bewertung des Simplikios und seine Wirkung im Islam nicht im rechten Verh\u00e4ltnis zueinander. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nULzjIVmZSFqXQi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":134,"full_name":"G\u00e4tje, Helmut ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":540,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Der Islam; Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients","volume":"59","issue":"","pages":"6-31"}},"sort":[1982]}

A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy, 1982
By: Janko, Richard
Title A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy
Type Article
Language English
Date 1982
Journal The Classical Quarterly
Volume 32
Issue 2
Pages 323-326
Categories no categories
Author(s) Janko, Richard
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
An important fragment of the lost portion of Aristotle's Poetics is the definition of synonyms preserved by Simplicius,' which corresponds to Aristotle's own citation of the Poetics for synonyms in the Rhetoric, 3. 2. 1404b 37 ff. I shall argue elsewhere that this derives from a discussion of the sources of verbal humour in the lost account of comedy and humour. Here it is my aim to show that Simplicius definitely derived the quotation from Porphyry, which pushes back the attestation of this part of the Poetics by more than two centuries (although the citation in the Antiatticist, Poet. fr. 4 Kassel, is older still). Furthermore, I shall show that some of the words in the definition are a gloss added by Porphyry for the purposes of his own polemic. [introduction, p. 323]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1359","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1359,"authors_free":[{"id":2035,"entry_id":1359,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":203,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Janko, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Janko","norm_person":{"id":203,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Janko","full_name":"Janko, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1013357299","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy","main_title":{"title":"A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy"},"abstract":"An important fragment of the lost portion of Aristotle's Poetics is the definition of synonyms preserved by Simplicius,' which corresponds to Aristotle's own citation of the Poetics for synonyms in the Rhetoric, 3. 2. 1404b 37 ff. I shall argue elsewhere that this derives from a discussion of the sources of verbal humour in the lost account of \r\ncomedy and humour. Here it is my aim to show that Simplicius definitely derived the quotation from Porphyry, which pushes back the attestation of this part of the Poetics by more than two centuries (although the citation in the Antiatticist, Poet. fr. 4 Kassel, is older still). Furthermore, I shall show that some of the words in the \r\ndefinition are a gloss added by Porphyry for the purposes of his own polemic. [introduction, p. 323]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FEkzGy6BAHpTaIG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":203,"full_name":"Janko, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1359,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"32","issue":"2","pages":"323-326"}},"sort":[1982]}

L'homonymie entre Aristote et ses commentateurs néo-platoniciens, 1981
By: Narcy, Michel
Title L'homonymie entre Aristote et ses commentateurs néo-platoniciens
Type Article
Language French
Date 1981
Journal Les Études philosophiques
Volume 1
Pages 35-52
Categories no categories
Author(s) Narcy, Michel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This text discusses the expression of Neoplatonism after Plotinus, which was primarily in the form of commentary on earlier works. However, this method can lead to errors and departures from the original ideas. The article examines how this applies to interpretations of homonymy in Aristotle's Categories, which are inconsistent among commentators. The author suggests that by examining how homonymy is used to resolve specific problems, one can better understand its meaning and transformation from Aristotle to Neoplatonism. The discussion centers on a passage in Simplicius's commentary on Categories in which he comments on Aristotle's remarks about the paronymous naming of beings defined by their quality. The author compares Simplicius's comments to Aristotle's original text, and argues that the former intentionally misrepresents the latter. [derived from the introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1104","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1104,"authors_free":[{"id":1667,"entry_id":1104,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":277,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narcy, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Narcy","norm_person":{"id":277,"first_name":"Michel","last_name":"Narcy","full_name":"Narcy, Michel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129449512","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'homonymie entre Aristote et ses commentateurs n\u00e9o-platoniciens","main_title":{"title":"L'homonymie entre Aristote et ses commentateurs n\u00e9o-platoniciens"},"abstract":"This text discusses the expression of Neoplatonism after Plotinus, which was primarily in the form of commentary on earlier works. However, this method can lead to errors and departures from the original ideas. The article examines how this applies to interpretations of homonymy in Aristotle's Categories, which are inconsistent among commentators. The author suggests that by examining how homonymy is used to resolve specific problems, one can better understand its meaning and transformation from Aristotle to Neoplatonism. The discussion centers on a passage in Simplicius's commentary on Categories in which he comments on Aristotle's remarks about the paronymous naming of beings defined by their quality. The author compares Simplicius's comments to Aristotle's original text, and argues that the former intentionally misrepresents the latter. [derived from the introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LehHtPQbB1BKLEC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":277,"full_name":"Narcy, Michel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1104,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"35-52"}},"sort":[1981]}

Les présocratiques et la question de l'infini, 1981
By: Frère, Jean
Title Les présocratiques et la question de l'infini
Type Article
Language French
Date 1981
Journal Les Études philosophiques
Volume 1
Pages 19-33
Categories no categories
Author(s) Frère, Jean
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Bien avant la philosophie de Platon et celle d'Aristote, la pensée grecque a rencontré la question du rapport entre l'infini (apeiros) et la perfection. Mais, pour aborder ce que les Grecs veulent nommer par le « non-limité », il convient de partir du débat que les linguistes ont engagé autour du terme. Plusieurs interprétations sémantiques sont envisagées dans le rapport entre apeiros et peirar/peras. Dans une première solution, le préfixe négatif a- se combine avec peras ; dans une seconde, le a- privatif porte sur la racine per (perô, peirô, perainô), qui signifie passage et traversée. En ce qui concerne peras, les linguistes sont de nouveau partagés entre « limite, bout, extrémité » ou « lien ». Pour ce qui est de la langue grecque, non encore conceptualisée par la démarche philosophique, ce que « illimité » peut véhiculer de non clair pour la raison ou de non rassurant pour le sentiment ne comporte pourtant aucune dimension de cette angoisse et de ce vertige que retiendra Pascal. Lorsque Homère ou Hésiode parlent de la « terre sans limite », lorsque Pindare chante la « renommée infinie » du héros, l’adjectif apeirôn se relie généralement à l’éloge de qualités concernant choses ou hommes. Il y a aussi l’idée de profondeur sans fin (le sommeil, hypnos, Odyssée VII, 286) ou d’ampleur (une foule d’hommes, Iliade XXIV, 776). C’est moins son aspect infini que son pouvoir d’engloutir qui fait caractériser comme terrible la mer infinie. De même, l’adjectif apeirôn, infini, renvoie à l’immensité comme profusion et comme richesse, qu’il s’agisse du lieu, du temps ou du nombre. Avec les présocratiques, apeiros/to apeiron s’installent dans la pensée philosophique. À travers des textes fragmentaires, il est difficile de savoir avec certitude la conception de l’infini (apeiron) que les présocratiques, de Thalès à Anaxagore et aux sophistes, avaient pu élaborer. Néanmoins, le problème de apeiron n’a pas été sans importance pour eux. Que l’un d’eux, Anaximandre, ait fait de l’apeiron l’archê de l’univers en est la marque. Et Mélissos caractérise le principe (archê) comme infini (apeiron). L’apeiron n’est donc point pour les présocratiques uniquement lié à l’imperfection que sera l’apeiron du Philebe. Il y a dans la pensée grecque des premiers temps comme un pressentiment de la richesse de l’infini, aussi bien qu’il désigne une absence de limite où la raison se perd. L’apeiron renvoie surtout à la spatialité, se lie à la grandeur (megethos), comme l’éternité (to aidion) se lie au temps. Dans les philosophies où la nature (physis) est aux confins du divin et du matériel, le principe, le tout, les mondes sont caractérisés d’abord par l’infini de grandeur, l’illimité. Mais l’infini est aussi envisagé comme indéfini qualitatif. Toutefois, face à l’infini qui est déterminé par sa richesse, certains présocratiques ont envisagé aussi l’infini qui est pure indétermination, degré incomplet de l’Être et forme du moindre Être. On trouve ici l’esquisse des conceptions philosophiques qui vont se préciser dans les théories plus élaborées de Platon et d’Aristote. [introduction p. 19-20]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"745","_score":null,"_source":{"id":745,"authors_free":[{"id":1108,"entry_id":745,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":101,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fr\u00e8re, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"Fr\u00e8re","norm_person":{"id":101,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"Fr\u00e8re","full_name":"Fr\u00e8re, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130051187","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les pr\u00e9socratiques et la question de l'infini","main_title":{"title":"Les pr\u00e9socratiques et la question de l'infini"},"abstract":"Bien avant la philosophie de Platon et celle d'Aristote, la pens\u00e9e grecque a rencontr\u00e9 la question du rapport entre l'infini (apeiros) et la perfection. Mais, pour aborder ce que les Grecs veulent nommer par le \u00ab non-limit\u00e9 \u00bb, il convient de partir du d\u00e9bat que les linguistes ont engag\u00e9 autour du terme. Plusieurs interpr\u00e9tations s\u00e9mantiques sont envisag\u00e9es dans le rapport entre apeiros et peirar\/peras. Dans une premi\u00e8re solution, le pr\u00e9fixe n\u00e9gatif a- se combine avec peras ; dans une seconde, le a- privatif porte sur la racine per (per\u00f4, peir\u00f4, perain\u00f4), qui signifie passage et travers\u00e9e. En ce qui concerne peras, les linguistes sont de nouveau partag\u00e9s entre \u00ab limite, bout, extr\u00e9mit\u00e9 \u00bb ou \u00ab lien \u00bb.\r\n\r\nPour ce qui est de la langue grecque, non encore conceptualis\u00e9e par la d\u00e9marche philosophique, ce que \u00ab illimit\u00e9 \u00bb peut v\u00e9hiculer de non clair pour la raison ou de non rassurant pour le sentiment ne comporte pourtant aucune dimension de cette angoisse et de ce vertige que retiendra Pascal. Lorsque Hom\u00e8re ou H\u00e9siode parlent de la \u00ab terre sans limite \u00bb, lorsque Pindare chante la \u00ab renomm\u00e9e infinie \u00bb du h\u00e9ros, l\u2019adjectif apeir\u00f4n se relie g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9loge de qualit\u00e9s concernant choses ou hommes. Il y a aussi l\u2019id\u00e9e de profondeur sans fin (le sommeil, hypnos, Odyss\u00e9e VII, 286) ou d\u2019ampleur (une foule d\u2019hommes, Iliade XXIV, 776). C\u2019est moins son aspect infini que son pouvoir d\u2019engloutir qui fait caract\u00e9riser comme terrible la mer infinie. De m\u00eame, l\u2019adjectif apeir\u00f4n, infini, renvoie \u00e0 l\u2019immensit\u00e9 comme profusion et comme richesse, qu\u2019il s\u2019agisse du lieu, du temps ou du nombre.\r\n\r\nAvec les pr\u00e9socratiques, apeiros\/to apeiron s\u2019installent dans la pens\u00e9e philosophique. \u00c0 travers des textes fragmentaires, il est difficile de savoir avec certitude la conception de l\u2019infini (apeiron) que les pr\u00e9socratiques, de Thal\u00e8s \u00e0 Anaxagore et aux sophistes, avaient pu \u00e9laborer. N\u00e9anmoins, le probl\u00e8me de apeiron n\u2019a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 sans importance pour eux. Que l\u2019un d\u2019eux, Anaximandre, ait fait de l\u2019apeiron l\u2019arch\u00ea de l\u2019univers en est la marque. Et M\u00e9lissos caract\u00e9rise le principe (arch\u00ea) comme infini (apeiron). L\u2019apeiron n\u2019est donc point pour les pr\u00e9socratiques uniquement li\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019imperfection que sera l\u2019apeiron du Philebe.\r\n\r\nIl y a dans la pens\u00e9e grecque des premiers temps comme un pressentiment de la richesse de l\u2019infini, aussi bien qu\u2019il d\u00e9signe une absence de limite o\u00f9 la raison se perd. L\u2019apeiron renvoie surtout \u00e0 la spatialit\u00e9, se lie \u00e0 la grandeur (megethos), comme l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 (to aidion) se lie au temps. Dans les philosophies o\u00f9 la nature (physis) est aux confins du divin et du mat\u00e9riel, le principe, le tout, les mondes sont caract\u00e9ris\u00e9s d\u2019abord par l\u2019infini de grandeur, l\u2019illimit\u00e9. Mais l\u2019infini est aussi envisag\u00e9 comme ind\u00e9fini qualitatif.\r\n\r\nToutefois, face \u00e0 l\u2019infini qui est d\u00e9termin\u00e9 par sa richesse, certains pr\u00e9socratiques ont envisag\u00e9 aussi l\u2019infini qui est pure ind\u00e9termination, degr\u00e9 incomplet de l\u2019\u00catre et forme du moindre \u00catre. On trouve ici l\u2019esquisse des conceptions philosophiques qui vont se pr\u00e9ciser dans les th\u00e9ories plus \u00e9labor\u00e9es de Platon et d\u2019Aristote. [introduction p. 19-20]","btype":3,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TpFRmhxNzvv4XUL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":101,"full_name":"Fr\u00e8re, Jean","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":745,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"19-33"}},"sort":[1981]}

Plotinus in later Platonism, 1981
By: Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Markus, R. A. (Ed.), Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Plotinus in later Platonism
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1981
Published in Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong
Pages 212-222
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Markus, R. A.
Translator(s)
We have seen, then, that in some areas later Neoplatonists introduced Plotinus’ views to corroborate their own. This was equally true of his opinions as a Platonist and, as they understood him, as an interpreter of Aristotle. These agreements are most often found in relatively uncontroversial areas of their thought. However, at the extremes of the metaphysical world and in those other areas where difficulties were likely to arise, we do find substantial differences. We must, however, be cautious about interpreting these differences in terms of chronological changes. The later Neoplatonists continued to disagree among themselves, and the process we have examined was not one of linear development away from Plotinus. [conclusion p. 220]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"873","_score":null,"_source":{"id":873,"authors_free":[{"id":1282,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1283,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":403,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Markus, R. A.","free_first_name":"R. A.","free_last_name":"Markus","norm_person":{"id":403,"first_name":"R. A.","last_name":"Markus","full_name":"Markus, R. A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121838862","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2229,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotinus in later Platonism","main_title":{"title":"Plotinus in later Platonism"},"abstract":"We have seen, then, that in some areas later Neoplatonists introduced Plotinus\u2019 views to corroborate their own. This was equally true of his opinions as a Platonist and, as they understood him, as an interpreter of Aristotle. These agreements are most often found in relatively uncontroversial areas of their thought.\r\n\r\nHowever, at the extremes of the metaphysical world and in those other areas where difficulties were likely to arise, we do find substantial differences. We must, however, be cautious about interpreting these differences in terms of chronological changes. The later Neoplatonists continued to disagree among themselves, and the process we have examined was not one of linear development away from Plotinus. [conclusion p. 220]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ydcrCuFuFOAFW6r","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":403,"full_name":"Markus, R. A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":873,"section_of":131,"pages":"212-222","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":131,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Markus1981a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"The studies collected in this book are all concerned with aspects of the Platonic tradition, either in its own internal development in the Hellenistic age and the period of the Roman Empire, or with the influence of Platonism, in one or other of its forms, on other spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PcJka3NQUzhA8jZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":131,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Variorum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1981]}

Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong, 1981
By: Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Markus, R. A. (Ed.)
Title Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1981
Publication Place London
Publisher Variorum
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Markus, R. A.
Translator(s)
The studies collected in this book are all concerned with aspects of the Platonic tradition, either in its own internal development in the Hellenistic age and the period of the Roman Empire, or with the influence of Platonism, in one or other of its forms, on other spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity. [offical abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"131","_score":null,"_source":{"id":131,"authors_free":[{"id":162,"entry_id":131,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2228,"entry_id":131,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":403,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Markus, R. A.","free_first_name":"R. A.","free_last_name":"Markus","norm_person":{"id":403,"first_name":"R. A.","last_name":"Markus","full_name":"Markus, R. A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121838862","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong"},"abstract":"The studies collected in this book are all concerned with aspects of the Platonic tradition, either in its own internal development in the Hellenistic age and the period of the Roman Empire, or with the influence of Platonism, in one or other of its forms, on other spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity. [offical abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PcJka3NQUzhA8jZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":403,"full_name":"Markus, R. A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":131,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Variorum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1981]}

La Physique d’Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs, 1981
By: Verbeke, Gérard, Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs N. (Ed.)
Title La Physique d’Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1981
Published in Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978
Categories no categories
Author(s) Verbeke, Gérard
Editor(s) Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs N.
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"185","_score":null,"_source":{"id":185,"authors_free":[{"id":241,"entry_id":185,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2506,"entry_id":185,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_first_name":" I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La Physique d\u2019Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs","main_title":{"title":"La Physique d\u2019Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WCFPRwh1E2k3zgK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":185,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Minist\u00e8re de la culture et des sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":185,"section_of":1459,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1459,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O3DQotq4JIjFp7W","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1981]}

Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity, 1981
By: Mueller, Ian, Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs Nikolaou (Ed.)
Title Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1981
Published in Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978
Pages 179-182
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mueller, Ian
Editor(s) Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs Nikolaou
Translator(s)
Aristotle was the first not only to distinguish between potential and actual infinity but also to insist that potential infinity alone is enough for mathematics thus initiating an issue still central to the philosophy of mathematics. Modern scholarship, however, has attacked Aristotle's thesis because, according to the received doctrine, it does not square with Euclidean geometry and it also seems to contravene Aristotle's belief in the finitude of the physical universe. This monograph, the first thorough study of the issue, puts Aristotle's views on infinity in the proper perspective. Through a close study of the relevant Aristotelian passages it shows that the Stagirite's theory of infinity forms a well argued philosophical position which does not bear on his belief in a finite cosmos and does not undermine the Euclidean nature of geometry. The monograph draws a much more positive picture of Aristotle's views and reaffirms his disputed stature as a serious philosopher of mathematics. This innovative and stimulating contribution will be essential reading to a wide range of scholars, including classicists, philosophers of science and mathematics as well as historians of ideas. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"63","_score":null,"_source":{"id":63,"authors_free":[{"id":71,"entry_id":63,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2505,"entry_id":63,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s Nikolaou","free_first_name":"I\u014dann\u0113s Nikolaou","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity"},"abstract":"Aristotle was the first not only to distinguish between potential and actual infinity but also to insist that potential infinity alone is enough for mathematics thus initiating an issue still central to the philosophy of mathematics. Modern scholarship, however, has attacked Aristotle's thesis because, according to the received doctrine, it does not square with Euclidean geometry and it also seems to contravene Aristotle's belief in the finitude of the physical universe. This monograph, the first thorough study of the issue, puts Aristotle's views on infinity in the proper perspective. Through a close study of the relevant Aristotelian passages it shows that the Stagirite's theory of infinity forms a well argued philosophical position which does not bear on his belief in a finite cosmos and does not undermine the Euclidean nature of geometry. The monograph draws a much more positive picture of Aristotle's views and reaffirms his disputed stature as a serious philosopher of mathematics. This innovative and stimulating contribution will be essential reading to a wide range of scholars, including classicists, philosophers of science and mathematics as well as historians of ideas. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XpR1jO7FPHTJmR4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":63,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"International Association for Greek Philosophy","series":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Ath\u00e8nes, Minist\u00e8re de la culture et des sciences","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":63,"section_of":1459,"pages":"179-182","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1459,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O3DQotq4JIjFp7W","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1981]}

Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite du Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote, 1981
By: Hoffmann, Philippe
Title Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite du Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1981
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Université Paris IV-Sorbonne
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"70","_score":null,"_source":{"id":70,"authors_free":[{"id":78,"entry_id":70,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite du Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite du Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FCQ06BefzUIofrf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":70,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Universit\u00e9 Paris IV-Sorbonne","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1981]}

Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi. A study of Post-Aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies. Vol. 1 The Greek Tradition, 1981
By: Ebbesen, S
Title Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi. A study of Post-Aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies. Vol. 1 The Greek Tradition
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1981
Publication Place Leiden
Publisher Brill
Categories no categories
Author(s) Ebbesen, S
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
About thirteen years ago when I was preparing an edition of some Latin 13th century quaestiones on the Sophistici Elenchi, I discovered some puzzling references to a commentary by "Alexander", obviously a Greek. He appeared to have been a very important man to the Westerners, for often he was simply called 'Commentator', a title reserved in other contexts for Averroes. This discovery gave rise to the questions,(!) Who was Alexander? (2) Are there more references to him in other Latin texts? (3) Is his work extant in Latin? (4) Is it extant in Greek? Re 1 At first I thought he must be Alexander of Aphrodisias. Now I do not know how to answer the question. Re 2 I soon found that Minio-Paluello and De Rijk had already signalled some other references to Alexander. Re 3 My first investigations indicated the answer would be no, and I still have not found the text in any manuscript. Re 4 My early research indicated the answer would be no, but that extant Greek scholia were often comparable to the Latin quotations of Alexander. The preliminary probings suggested that a search for more Latin references to Alexander and an inquiry into the Greek scholia on the Elenchi might throw light on the origins of Western scholasticism and at the same time prove the existence of a Byzantine scholasticism comparable to that of Western Europe in the High Middle Ages. A systematic search for more fragments of the Latin translation of Alexanders's commentary resulted in the collection that figures as Vol. II, Part 2, of this study. Studying the Greek scholia I soon realized that they could not be used for any serious purpose as long as elementary questions of dating and attribution had not been solved. Trying to find the answer to such questions, I found that investigating the whole manuscript tradition was inescapable. The results of that investigation are presented in Vol. 1 chapter V and the appendices (in Vol. III). Reading the Greek scholia I became convinced that Byzantine scholasticism never produced results comparable to those of its Western counterpart; but, on the other hand, a study of the late ancient and medieval Greek scholastic tradition could, indeed, throw light on the origins of Western logic. The results of my investigations are presented partly in the notes on "Alexander's" fragments (in Vol. Ill), partly in a series of essays on central problems (Vol. I ch.IV). Vol. I chapters I-II contain sketches of pre-scholastic theories of fallacies, some of which were to influence the scholastics, whereas chapter III introduces scholasticism. As both Vol. I and Vol. III discuss Greek texts that have never been printed, I have collected a number of such texts in Vol. II, editing also Galen's De captionibus because the earlier editions are no longer satisfactory. Chapters I through W of Vol. I all have a speculative character. I have tried to rein in my imagination, but I may not always have achieved my aim. I feel sure I have misunderstood the old philosophers on several points. Perhaps it can serve as an excuse that most of the problems I deal with have not been investigated before. If there are fundamental errors in chapter V, the consequences for the rest of 'Commentators and Commentaries' will be serious, if not disastrous. I trust, however, that my results concerning the Byzantine tradition are essentially correct. [preface]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"34","_score":null,"_source":{"id":34,"authors_free":[{"id":40,"entry_id":34,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ebbesen, S","free_first_name":"S","free_last_name":"Ebbesen","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi. A study of Post-Aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies. Vol. 1 The Greek Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi. A study of Post-Aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies. Vol. 1 The Greek Tradition"},"abstract":"About thirteen years ago when I was preparing an edition of some Latin 13th century quaestiones on the Sophistici Elenchi, I discovered some puzzling references to a commentary\r\nby \"Alexander\", obviously a Greek. He appeared to have been a very important man to the\r\nWesterners, for often he was simply called 'Commentator', a title reserved in other contexts for Averroes.\r\nThis discovery gave rise to the questions,(!) Who was Alexander? (2) Are there more references to him in other Latin texts? (3) Is his work extant in Latin? (4) Is it extant in Greek?\r\nRe 1 At first I thought he must be Alexander of Aphrodisias. Now I do not know how to answer the question.\r\nRe 2 I soon found that Minio-Paluello and De Rijk had already signalled some other references to Alexander.\r\nRe 3 My first investigations indicated the answer would be no, and I still have not found the text in any manuscript. \r\nRe 4 My early research indicated the answer would be no, but that extant Greek scholia were often comparable to the Latin quotations of Alexander.\r\nThe preliminary probings suggested that a search for more Latin references to Alexander and an inquiry into the Greek scholia on the Elenchi might throw light on the origins of Western scholasticism and at the same time prove the existence of a Byzantine scholasticism comparable to that of Western Europe in the High Middle Ages. A systematic search for more fragments of the Latin translation of Alexanders's commentary resulted in the collection that figures as Vol. II, Part 2, of this study.\r\nStudying the Greek scholia I soon realized that they could not be used for any serious purpose as long as elementary questions of dating and attribution had not been solved. Trying to find the answer to such questions, I found that investigating the whole manuscript tradition\r\nwas inescapable. The results of that investigation are presented in Vol. 1 chapter V and the appendices (in Vol. III).\r\nReading the Greek scholia I became convinced that Byzantine scholasticism never produced results comparable to those of its Western counterpart; but, on the other hand, a study of the late ancient and medieval Greek scholastic tradition could, indeed, throw light on the\r\norigins of Western logic.\r\nThe results of my investigations are presented partly in the notes on \"Alexander's\" fragments (in Vol. Ill), partly in a series of essays on central problems (Vol. I ch.IV).\r\nVol. I chapters I-II contain sketches of pre-scholastic theories of fallacies, some of which were to influence the scholastics, whereas chapter III introduces scholasticism.\r\nAs both Vol. I and Vol. III discuss Greek texts that have never been printed, I have collected a number of such texts in Vol. II, editing also Galen's De captionibus because the earlier editions are no longer satisfactory.\r\nChapters I through W of Vol. I all have a speculative character. I have tried to rein in my imagination, but I may not always have achieved my aim. I feel sure I have misunderstood the old philosophers on several points. Perhaps it can serve as an excuse that most of the problems I deal with have not been investigated before. If there are fundamental errors in chapter V, the consequences for the rest of 'Commentators and Commentaries' will be serious, if not disastrous. I trust, however, that my results concerning the Byzantine tradition are\r\nessentially correct. [preface]\r\n","btype":1,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gtXiqKQ2uGtS14q","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":34,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1981]}

Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World, 1981
By: Verbeke, Gérard, O'Meara, Dominic J. (Ed.)
Title Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1981
Published in Neoplatonism and Christian thought
Pages 45-53
Categories no categories
Author(s) Verbeke, Gérard
Editor(s) O'Meara, Dominic J.
Translator(s)
The commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle’s Physics is particularly inter­ esting thanks to the rich information it provides concerning the doctrines of pre­ vious philosophers. His interpretation shows a great erudition, but it is not always faithful to the authentic thought of Aristotle. The first cause of Aristotle is not that of Simplicius and this is not the only case in which Simplicius gave to Aristotelian thought a turn that does not correspond to its original content. A similar distortion may be found in the interpretation of the intricate question of chance and fortune. It is more difficult to formulate a judgment about the commentary of Philoponus: to what extent does it reflect the teaching of Ammonius? In any case, the interpretation is very penetrating, especially in those passages where the author criticizes the doctrine of Aristotle and expresses manifestly his own ideas. Alfarabi takes Philoponus to task for settling a philosophical question with the help of religious doctrines:60 nothing is less true, as W. Wieland has already noticed. Philoponus, rather, uses Aristotelian philosophy in order to refute Aristotle.61 On the other hand he appeals to the concept of creation against the eternity of the world: he very sharply notices, perhaps also under the influence of Ammonius, that creation as an integral causation is not a movement and does not belong to the continuous process of coming-to-be and passing away. Thanks mainly to the concept of creation, the author escapes from the eternity of movement and time. [conclusion p. 52-53]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"450","_score":null,"_source":{"id":450,"authors_free":[{"id":603,"entry_id":450,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":604,"entry_id":450,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World","main_title":{"title":"Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World"},"abstract":"The commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle\u2019s Physics is particularly inter\u00ad\r\nesting thanks to the rich information it provides concerning the doctrines of pre\u00ad\r\nvious philosophers. His interpretation shows a great erudition, but it is not always \r\nfaithful to the authentic thought of Aristotle. The first cause of Aristotle is not \r\nthat of Simplicius and this is not the only case in which Simplicius gave to \r\nAristotelian thought a turn that does not correspond to its original content. A similar \r\ndistortion may be found in the interpretation of the intricate question of chance \r\nand fortune. It is more difficult to formulate a judgment about the commentary \r\nof Philoponus: to what extent does it reflect the teaching of Ammonius? In any \r\ncase, the interpretation is very penetrating, especially in those passages where \r\nthe author criticizes the doctrine of Aristotle and expresses manifestly his own \r\nideas. Alfarabi takes Philoponus to task for settling a philosophical question with \r\nthe help of religious doctrines:60 nothing is less true, as W. Wieland has already \r\nnoticed. Philoponus, rather, uses Aristotelian philosophy in order to refute \r\nAristotle.61 On the other hand he appeals to the concept of creation against the eternity of the world: he very sharply notices, perhaps also under the influence of \r\nAmmonius, that creation as an integral causation is not a movement and does not \r\nbelong to the continuous process of coming-to-be and passing away. Thanks mainly \r\nto the concept of creation, the author escapes from the eternity of movement \r\nand time. [conclusion p. 52-53]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QSUX1JffS4trd4H","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":450,"section_of":12,"pages":"45-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":12,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"O'Meara1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines\u2014classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8tb5ZmmacZhgjDn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":12,"pubplace":"Albany","publisher":"State University of New York Press","series":"Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1981]}

An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories?, 1981
By: Huby, Pamela M.
Title An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1981
Journal The Classical Quarterly
Volume 31
Issue 2
Pages 398-409
Categories no categories
Author(s) Huby, Pamela M.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The text discusses an excerpt of a set of leaves from a fourteenth-century manuscript called Laurentianus 71, 32, containing paraphrases of several works. Theodore Waitz uses these leaves for scholia on Aristotle's Categories and De Interpretatione. The heading of the leaves is "Peri tês tou pote katêgorias," and the work consists of two parts. The first part discusses Time, based on Physics 4, while the second part deals with the category of When, which Aristotle only briefly mentions. The author of the work is believed to be Boethus of Sidon, the Peripatetic, who wrote a commentary on the Categories, as mentioned by Simplicius in his own commentary on the same work. Boethus is seen as a conservative who defended Aristotle against innovations, particularly Andronicus of Rhodes' attempt to substitute the category of Time for When. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1355","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1355,"authors_free":[{"id":2029,"entry_id":1355,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":200,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","free_first_name":"Pamela M.","free_last_name":"Huby","norm_person":{"id":200,"first_name":"Pamela M.","last_name":"Huby","full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120868962","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories?","main_title":{"title":"An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories?"},"abstract":"The text discusses an excerpt of a set of leaves from a fourteenth-century manuscript called Laurentianus 71, 32, containing paraphrases of several works. Theodore Waitz uses these leaves for scholia on Aristotle's Categories and De Interpretatione. The heading of the leaves is \"Peri t\u00eas tou pote kat\u00eagorias,\" and the work consists of two parts. The first part discusses Time, based on Physics 4, while the second part deals with the category of When, which Aristotle only briefly mentions. The author of the work is believed to be Boethus of Sidon, the Peripatetic, who wrote a commentary on the Categories, as mentioned by Simplicius in his own commentary on the same work. Boethus is seen as a conservative who defended Aristotle against innovations, particularly Andronicus of Rhodes' attempt to substitute the category of Time for When. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MEh6PB5J3LpaDg5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":200,"full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1355,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"31","issue":"2","pages":"398-409"}},"sort":[1981]}

Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978, 1981
By: Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs Nikolaou (Ed.)
Title Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1981
Publication Place Athen
Publisher Athēna : Ministry of Culture and Sciences
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs Nikolaou
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1459","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1459,"authors_free":[{"id":2504,"entry_id":1459,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s Nikolaou","free_first_name":"I\u014dann\u0113s Nikolaou","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","main_title":{"title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/I0bn1qB2TUZcu8q","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1981]}

Simplicios, commentateur représentatif d’Aristote dans le néoplatonisme tardif, 1981
By: Vamvoukakis, Nicolas, Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs N. (Ed.)
Title Simplicios, commentateur représentatif d’Aristote dans le néoplatonisme tardif
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1981
Published in Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978
Pages 250
Categories no categories
Author(s) Vamvoukakis, Nicolas
Editor(s) Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs N.
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1460","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1460,"authors_free":[{"id":2524,"entry_id":1460,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":344,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","free_first_name":"Nicolas","free_last_name":"Vamvoukakis","norm_person":{"id":344,"first_name":"Nicolas","last_name":"Vamvoukakis","full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2525,"entry_id":1460,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_first_name":"I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos,","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicios, commentateur repr\u00e9sentatif d\u2019Aristote dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif","main_title":{"title":"Simplicios, commentateur repr\u00e9sentatif d\u2019Aristote dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UItMYMORGj0gHKz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":344,"full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1460,"section_of":1459,"pages":"250","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1459,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Theod\u014drakopulos1981","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/I0bn1qB2TUZcu8q","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1981]}

Aristote: quantité et contrariété. Une critique de l’école d’Oxford, 1980
By: O'Brien, Denis, Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Aristote: quantité et contrariété. Une critique de l’école d’Oxford
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1980
Published in Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique
Pages 89-165
Categories no categories
Author(s) O'Brien, Denis
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)
Avant-propos L’école d’Oxford et le commentaire du Professeur J. L. Ackrill sur les Catégories d’Aristote. Les divisions du texte — un point de repère. Objet de l’argument (5b11-15) Distinction entre propriétés et possesseurs de propriétés. Distinction entre l’aire et la surface, le volume et le corps. Distinction entre quantités déterminées et quantités indéterminées. Le premier argument (5b15-29) La grandeur relative et la grandeur en soi. Les nombreux et les peu nombreux : motif de la double comparaison. Commentaire de Simplicius : les deux formes du paradoxe. Commentaire de Simplicius : la grandeur relative et la grandeur absolue. Le doublet (5b26-29). Le deuxième argument (5b30-33) Rubrique liminaire : une même chose peut-elle se rencontrer dans plus d’une catégorie ? Les relatifs peuvent-ils avoir des contraires ? Les deux groupes de relatifs : ceux qui peuvent avoir un contraire, ceux qui ne peuvent pas avoir de contraire. Relation et contrariété : la prémisse sous-jacente de l’argument. Le troisième argument (5b33-6a11) Introduction à l’argument (5b33-35). Première partie de l’argument : une chose admettra deux contraires à la fois (5b35-6a4). Seconde partie de l’argument : les choses contraires seront, à elles-mêmes, contraires (6a4-8). Conclusion de l’argument (6a8-11). Traduction-Paraphrase du chapitre six des Catégories (4b20-6a35) [structure by the author]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1099","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1099,"authors_free":[{"id":1661,"entry_id":1099,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O'Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O\u2019Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1662,"entry_id":1099,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristote: quantit\u00e9 et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9. Une critique de l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford","main_title":{"title":"Aristote: quantit\u00e9 et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9. Une critique de l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford"},"abstract":"Avant-propos\r\nL\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford et le commentaire du Professeur J. L. Ackrill sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote.\r\nLes divisions du texte \u2014 un point de rep\u00e8re.\r\nObjet de l\u2019argument (5b11-15)\r\n\r\n Distinction entre propri\u00e9t\u00e9s et possesseurs de propri\u00e9t\u00e9s.\r\n Distinction entre l\u2019aire et la surface, le volume et le corps.\r\n Distinction entre quantit\u00e9s d\u00e9termin\u00e9es et quantit\u00e9s ind\u00e9termin\u00e9es.\r\n\r\nLe premier argument (5b15-29)\r\n\r\n La grandeur relative et la grandeur en soi.\r\n Les nombreux et les peu nombreux : motif de la double comparaison.\r\n Commentaire de Simplicius : les deux formes du paradoxe.\r\n Commentaire de Simplicius : la grandeur relative et la grandeur absolue.\r\n Le doublet (5b26-29).\r\n\r\nLe deuxi\u00e8me argument (5b30-33)\r\n\r\n Rubrique liminaire : une m\u00eame chose peut-elle se rencontrer dans plus d\u2019une cat\u00e9gorie ?\r\n Les relatifs peuvent-ils avoir des contraires ?\r\n Les deux groupes de relatifs : ceux qui peuvent avoir un contraire, ceux qui ne peuvent pas avoir de contraire.\r\n Relation et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 : la pr\u00e9misse sous-jacente de l\u2019argument.\r\n\r\nLe troisi\u00e8me argument (5b33-6a11)\r\n\r\n Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019argument (5b33-35).\r\n Premi\u00e8re partie de l\u2019argument : une chose admettra deux contraires \u00e0 la fois (5b35-6a4).\r\n Seconde partie de l\u2019argument : les choses contraires seront, \u00e0 elles-m\u00eames, contraires (6a4-8).\r\n Conclusion de l\u2019argument (6a8-11).\r\n\r\nTraduction-Paraphrase du chapitre six des Cat\u00e9gories (4b20-6a35) [structure by the author]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fSSFgeHBQMgQH3p","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1099,"section_of":302,"pages":"89-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1980]}

Jamblique exégète du pythagoricien Archytas: trois originalités d’une doctrine du temps, 1980
By: Hoffmann, Philippe
Title Jamblique exégète du pythagoricien Archytas: trois originalités d’une doctrine du temps
Type Article
Language French
Date 1980
Journal Les Études philosophiques
Volume 3
Pages 307-323
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Le développement de la philosophie grecque tardive est inséparable de l'exégèse de textes canoniques, parmi lesquels les traités d'Aristote et les dialogues de Platon occupent une place tout à fait particulière. Dans le cadre d'une pratique essentiellement scolaire, la tâche du commentateur est d'expliciter une vérité supposée donnée à l'origine, présente dans le texte qui est lu. On a déjà fait remarquer la fécondité philosophique des faux sens, contresens ou déviations qui ne manquent pas de se produire à l'occasion de ces exégèses : c'est par ce travail de l'erreur qu'apparaît souvent une nouveauté doctrinale, et tout se passe comme si la philosophie aimait à se nourrir d'analyses philologiquement erronées ou insoutenables. Nous voudrions présenter ici un exemple typique de ce phénomène : comment une exégèse néoplatonicienne d'un "faux" pythagoricien a permis l'apparition d'une pensée nouvelle du temps. Lorsqu'il explique la doctrine aristotélicienne du temps dans ses commentaires aux Catégories et à la Physique, Simplicius suit les traces de Jamblique, aux yeux de qui la source d'Aristote est le pythagoricien Archytas de Tarente. [introduction p. 307]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"686","_score":null,"_source":{"id":686,"authors_free":[{"id":1019,"entry_id":686,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Jamblique ex\u00e9g\u00e8te du pythagoricien Archytas: trois originalit\u00e9s d\u2019une doctrine du temps","main_title":{"title":"Jamblique ex\u00e9g\u00e8te du pythagoricien Archytas: trois originalit\u00e9s d\u2019une doctrine du temps"},"abstract":"Le d\u00e9veloppement de la philosophie grecque tardive est ins\u00e9parable de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de textes canoniques, parmi lesquels les trait\u00e9s d'Aristote et les dialogues de Platon occupent une place tout \u00e0 fait particuli\u00e8re. Dans le cadre d'une pratique essentiellement scolaire, la t\u00e2che du commentateur est d'expliciter une v\u00e9rit\u00e9 suppos\u00e9e donn\u00e9e \u00e0 l'origine, pr\u00e9sente dans le texte qui est lu. On a d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait remarquer la f\u00e9condit\u00e9 philosophique des faux sens, contresens ou d\u00e9viations qui ne manquent pas de se produire \u00e0 l'occasion de ces ex\u00e9g\u00e8ses : c'est par ce travail de l'erreur qu'appara\u00eet souvent une nouveaut\u00e9 doctrinale, et tout se passe comme si la philosophie aimait \u00e0 se nourrir d'analyses philologiquement erron\u00e9es ou insoutenables.\r\n\r\nNous voudrions pr\u00e9senter ici un exemple typique de ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne : comment une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'un \"faux\" pythagoricien a permis l'apparition d'une pens\u00e9e nouvelle du temps.\r\n\r\nLorsqu'il explique la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne du temps dans ses commentaires aux Cat\u00e9gories et \u00e0 la Physique, Simplicius suit les traces de Jamblique, aux yeux de qui la source d'Aristote est le pythagoricien Archytas de Tarente. [introduction p. 307]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/67kpJTeAGPd2zao","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":686,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"307-323"}},"sort":[1980]}

La Récupération d'Anaxagore, 1980
By: Ramnoux, Clémence
Title La Récupération d'Anaxagore
Type Article
Language French
Date 1980
Journal Archives de Philosophie
Volume 43
Issue 1
Pages 75-98
Categories no categories
Author(s) Ramnoux, Clémence
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The author meant to «recuperate» the Fragments of Anaxagoras, most of which are transmitted in the Commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle's Physics I, 4, without severing them from their context. While doing so he was interested in the neo-platonicist presentation itself, and also in the modern interpretations proceeding from it, enhancing an interpretative tradition. The first article inquires into the presentation of doctrines by dichotomic confrontation and into the problem of contrary couples. Following on the recuperation of the Fragments of Anaxagoras in a neo-platonic context, the second article presents the doctrine of the Spirit as agent both of thinking discrimination and of mechanical separation which starts from the original gathering, and which is both thought and subtantial. It examines subsequently how far a doctrine of the plurality of worlds can be attributed to Anaxagoras. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1063","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1063,"authors_free":[{"id":1613,"entry_id":1063,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":295,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ramnoux, Cl\u00e9mence","free_first_name":"Cl\u00e9mence","free_last_name":"Ramnoux","norm_person":{"id":295,"first_name":"Cl\u00e9mence","last_name":"Ramnoux","full_name":"Ramnoux, Cl\u00e9mence","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1219538949","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La R\u00e9cup\u00e9ration d'Anaxagore","main_title":{"title":"La R\u00e9cup\u00e9ration d'Anaxagore"},"abstract":"The author meant to \u00abrecuperate\u00bb the Fragments of Anaxagoras, most of which are transmitted in the Commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle's Physics I, 4, without severing them from their context. While doing so he was interested in the neo-platonicist presentation itself, and also in the modern interpretations proceeding from it, enhancing an interpretative tradition. The first article inquires into the presentation of doctrines by dichotomic confrontation and into the problem of contrary couples. Following on the recuperation of the Fragments of Anaxagoras in a neo-platonic context, the second article presents the doctrine of the Spirit as agent both of thinking discrimination and of mechanical separation which starts from the original gathering, and which is both thought and subtantial. It examines subsequently how far a doctrine of the plurality of worlds can be attributed to Anaxagoras. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5IeMTnUXyCXR7VK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":295,"full_name":"Ramnoux, Cl\u00e9mence","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1063,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archives de Philosophie","volume":"43","issue":"1","pages":"75-98"}},"sort":[1980]}

Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficulté de la doctrine aristotélicienne de la qualité (Aristote Catégories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14), 1980
By: Narcy, Michel, Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficulté de la doctrine aristotélicienne de la qualité (Aristote Catégories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14)
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1980
Published in Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique
Pages 197-216
Categories no categories
Author(s) Narcy, Michel
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)
Au chapitre 8 des Catégories, consacré à la qualité (poiotes), Aristote, comme il l’a fait à propos des catégories précédentes (substance, quantité, relation), fait suivre son exposé de l’examen de deux questions : savoir si, dans l’ordre de la qualité, se trouvent contrariété (enantiótes) et accroissement ou diminution (to mallon kai to héttion). On peut noter d’ailleurs qu’à la réponse à ces deux questions se limiteront, au chapitre 9, les indications fournies au sujet des catégories de l’action et de la passion. Questions dont on a pu reconnaître qu’elles constituent comme l’application aux catégories aristotéliciennes d’un système catégorial plus ancien, provenant de l’Académie et dérivé, à travers le platonisme, du pythagorisme. Il peut paraître étrange de délimiter ici, en vue d’une étude de la catégorie de qualité, un passage d’allure adventice, où vient pour ainsi dire s’entrecroiser avec le fil de l’exposé d’Aristote, et contredire l’assurance de sa classification, une problématique qui semble d’autant moins lui appartenir en propre qu’elle contribue surtout à jeter le doute sur la cohérence de l’exposé qui précède. À chacune des deux questions, en effet, Aristote donne tout d’abord une réponse affirmative (contrariété : 10 b 12 ; accroissement et diminution : 10 b 26), mais c’est pour noter ensuite, à la règle ainsi posée, des exceptions. Ainsi, donnant comme exemple de contrariété le blanc et le noir (10 b 13), il remarque un peu plus bas que d’autres couleurs, telles que le rouge et le jaune, n’ont pas de contraires (10 b 16-17). De même, dans le passage qui va nous occuper, affirme-t-il qu’à la différence des autres qualités, la figure n’est pas susceptible de plus et de moins : exception de taille, cette fois, puisque c’est ainsi l’une des quatre subdivisions de la qualité qui se voit assigner un statut à part. Rejoignant là l’objection que fait Plotin au principe même d’une division au sein de la qualité, on ne peut éviter de se demander pourquoi la figure est rangée sous cette catégorie. Soit donc que, dans la rencontre avec le système catégorial académique, Aristote se trouve confronté à une difficulté dont il ne vient pas à bout, soit qu’il souligne ainsi l’inadéquation de la « grille » qu’il abandonne, ce passage peut sembler rien moins que central dans le chapitre. À moins que se révèlent, dans la difficulté précisément, pour autant qu’elle est comme une trace de la cassure opérée, et à moins que, pourquoi pas, dans cette cassure se constituent, la signification et la raison d’être de la catégorie aristotélicienne de la qualité, et avec elle, la doctrine des catégories. L’exception constituée par la figure, en effet, n’est pas une faiblesse qui se laisse seulement apercevoir : Aristote, au contraire, loin de la masquer ou de la mentionner sans plus, comme il fait du rouge et du jaune à propos de la contrariété, non seulement l’expose avec un soin particulier, mais produit une argumentation à l’appui. Ce qui doit d’autant plus retenir l’attention, qu’il a tout d’abord travaillé à réduire une première exception, celle que constitueraient des dispositions telles que la justice ou la santé (10 b 30-11 a 5). Le soin égal apporté, d’abord à réduire une première exception, puis à en produire une autre, donne à croire qu’à entendre au plus près la difficulté, on a chance d’y saisir une ligne de force de la doctrine. Examinons donc tout d’abord la première partie de notre passage (10 b 26-11 a 5). C’est l’affirmation que les qualités (tà poià) reçoivent « le plus et le moins » (tà mallon kai tà héttion) : « du blanc, en effet : l’un est dit plus et moins qu’un autre. Et du juste : l’un qu’un autre, plus ». [introduction p. 197-198]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"792","_score":null,"_source":{"id":792,"authors_free":[{"id":1169,"entry_id":792,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":277,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narcy, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Narcy","norm_person":{"id":277,"first_name":"Michel","last_name":"Narcy","full_name":"Narcy, Michel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129449512","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1170,"entry_id":792,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficult\u00e9 de la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9 (Aristote Cat\u00e9gories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14)","main_title":{"title":"Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficult\u00e9 de la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9 (Aristote Cat\u00e9gories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14)"},"abstract":"Au chapitre 8 des Cat\u00e9gories, consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la qualit\u00e9 (poiotes), Aristote, comme il l\u2019a fait \u00e0 propos des cat\u00e9gories pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes (substance, quantit\u00e9, relation), fait suivre son expos\u00e9 de l\u2019examen de deux questions : savoir si, dans l\u2019ordre de la qualit\u00e9, se trouvent contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 (enanti\u00f3tes) et accroissement ou diminution (to mallon kai to h\u00e9ttion). On peut noter d\u2019ailleurs qu\u2019\u00e0 la r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 ces deux questions se limiteront, au chapitre 9, les indications fournies au sujet des cat\u00e9gories de l\u2019action et de la passion. Questions dont on a pu reconna\u00eetre qu\u2019elles constituent comme l\u2019application aux cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019un syst\u00e8me cat\u00e9gorial plus ancien, provenant de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie et d\u00e9riv\u00e9, \u00e0 travers le platonisme, du pythagorisme.\r\n\r\nIl peut para\u00eetre \u00e9trange de d\u00e9limiter ici, en vue d\u2019une \u00e9tude de la cat\u00e9gorie de qualit\u00e9, un passage d\u2019allure adventice, o\u00f9 vient pour ainsi dire s\u2019entrecroiser avec le fil de l\u2019expos\u00e9 d\u2019Aristote, et contredire l\u2019assurance de sa classification, une probl\u00e9matique qui semble d\u2019autant moins lui appartenir en propre qu\u2019elle contribue surtout \u00e0 jeter le doute sur la coh\u00e9rence de l\u2019expos\u00e9 qui pr\u00e9c\u00e8de. \u00c0 chacune des deux questions, en effet, Aristote donne tout d\u2019abord une r\u00e9ponse affirmative (contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 : 10 b 12 ; accroissement et diminution : 10 b 26), mais c\u2019est pour noter ensuite, \u00e0 la r\u00e8gle ainsi pos\u00e9e, des exceptions. Ainsi, donnant comme exemple de contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 le blanc et le noir (10 b 13), il remarque un peu plus bas que d\u2019autres couleurs, telles que le rouge et le jaune, n\u2019ont pas de contraires (10 b 16-17). De m\u00eame, dans le passage qui va nous occuper, affirme-t-il qu\u2019\u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence des autres qualit\u00e9s, la figure n\u2019est pas susceptible de plus et de moins : exception de taille, cette fois, puisque c\u2019est ainsi l\u2019une des quatre subdivisions de la qualit\u00e9 qui se voit assigner un statut \u00e0 part.\r\n\r\nRejoignant l\u00e0 l\u2019objection que fait Plotin au principe m\u00eame d\u2019une division au sein de la qualit\u00e9, on ne peut \u00e9viter de se demander pourquoi la figure est rang\u00e9e sous cette cat\u00e9gorie. Soit donc que, dans la rencontre avec le syst\u00e8me cat\u00e9gorial acad\u00e9mique, Aristote se trouve confront\u00e9 \u00e0 une difficult\u00e9 dont il ne vient pas \u00e0 bout, soit qu\u2019il souligne ainsi l\u2019inad\u00e9quation de la \u00ab grille \u00bb qu\u2019il abandonne, ce passage peut sembler rien moins que central dans le chapitre. \u00c0 moins que se r\u00e9v\u00e8lent, dans la difficult\u00e9 pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment, pour autant qu\u2019elle est comme une trace de la cassure op\u00e9r\u00e9e, et \u00e0 moins que, pourquoi pas, dans cette cassure se constituent, la signification et la raison d\u2019\u00eatre de la cat\u00e9gorie aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9, et avec elle, la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nL\u2019exception constitu\u00e9e par la figure, en effet, n\u2019est pas une faiblesse qui se laisse seulement apercevoir : Aristote, au contraire, loin de la masquer ou de la mentionner sans plus, comme il fait du rouge et du jaune \u00e0 propos de la contrari\u00e9t\u00e9, non seulement l\u2019expose avec un soin particulier, mais produit une argumentation \u00e0 l\u2019appui. Ce qui doit d\u2019autant plus retenir l\u2019attention, qu\u2019il a tout d\u2019abord travaill\u00e9 \u00e0 r\u00e9duire une premi\u00e8re exception, celle que constitueraient des dispositions telles que la justice ou la sant\u00e9 (10 b 30-11 a 5). Le soin \u00e9gal apport\u00e9, d\u2019abord \u00e0 r\u00e9duire une premi\u00e8re exception, puis \u00e0 en produire une autre, donne \u00e0 croire qu\u2019\u00e0 entendre au plus pr\u00e8s la difficult\u00e9, on a chance d\u2019y saisir une ligne de force de la doctrine.\r\n\r\nExaminons donc tout d\u2019abord la premi\u00e8re partie de notre passage (10 b 26-11 a 5). C\u2019est l\u2019affirmation que les qualit\u00e9s (t\u00e0 poi\u00e0) re\u00e7oivent \u00ab le plus et le moins \u00bb (t\u00e0 mallon kai t\u00e0 h\u00e9ttion) : \u00ab du blanc, en effet : l\u2019un est dit plus et moins qu\u2019un autre. Et du juste : l\u2019un qu\u2019un autre, plus \u00bb. [introduction p. 197-198]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qCqUG7AShSYKtrM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":277,"full_name":"Narcy, Michel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":792,"section_of":302,"pages":"197-216","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1980]}

Some Concepts in Physical Theory in John Philoponus' Aristotelian Commentaries, 1980
By: Todd, Robert B.
Title Some Concepts in Physical Theory in John Philoponus' Aristotelian Commentaries
Type Article
Language English
Date 1980
Journal Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte
Volume 24
Issue 2
Pages 151-170
Categories no categories
Author(s) Todd, Robert B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
I have tried, then, to establish the significance of some ideas in Philoponus' commentaries that, in different ways, reveal this commentator's individuality. Individuality is not, of course, the same as originality, and indeed both my examples have shown how dependent Philoponus was on the many philosophical sources that converge in his commentaries. But this very complexity, at times reaching an eclectic inconsistency, is what makes the Aristotelian exegetical tradition in antiquity worth continued study. At their best, these commentaries involve the interaction between, on the one hand, an inventive commentator with prejudices of his own and, on the other hand, a mass of inherited material. The result may not always illuminate Aristotle, but it will invariably shed light on the continuity of the Greek philosophical tradition in late antiquity. [conclusion p. 170]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"842","_score":null,"_source":{"id":842,"authors_free":[{"id":1246,"entry_id":842,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":340,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, Robert B.","free_first_name":"Robert B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":{"id":340,"first_name":"Robert B.","last_name":"Todd","full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129460788","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Concepts in Physical Theory in John Philoponus' Aristotelian Commentaries","main_title":{"title":"Some Concepts in Physical Theory in John Philoponus' Aristotelian Commentaries"},"abstract":"I have tried, then, to establish the significance of some ideas in Philoponus' commentaries that, in different ways, reveal this commentator's individuality. Individuality is not, of course, the same as originality, and indeed both my examples have shown how dependent Philoponus was on the many philosophical sources that converge in his commentaries. But this very complexity, at times reaching an eclectic inconsistency, is what makes the Aristotelian exegetical tradition in antiquity worth continued study.\r\n\r\nAt their best, these commentaries involve the interaction between, on the one hand, an inventive commentator with prejudices of his own and, on the other hand, a mass of inherited material. The result may not always illuminate Aristotle, but it will invariably shed light on the continuity of the Greek philosophical tradition in late antiquity. [conclusion p. 170]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6cdjUb25vOM63SC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":842,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"24","issue":"2","pages":"151-170"}},"sort":[1980]}

Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique, 1980
By: Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1980
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Vrin
Series Bibliotheque d’histoire de la philosophie
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)
Depuis Aristote, on entend par catégories des concepts très généraux, dont la généralité ne dérive pas de l’expérience, mais en quelque sorte la précède, puisque c’est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l’organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts – substance, quantité, relation, qualité, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir – sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pensée ou bien sont-ils liés aux particularités sémantiques ou syntaxiques d’un système linguistique particulier, en l’occurrence de la langue grecque, à l’intérieur de laquelle ils ont été pour la première fois énoncés et rassemblés? Les études ici réunies, issues d’un séminaire qui s’est poursuivi durant plusieurs années au Centre de recherche sur la Pensée antique de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, associé au C.N.R.S. (Centre Léon-Robin), s’efforcent d’apporter des éléments de réponse à cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport spécifique consiste dans une exégèse rigoureuse des analyses du traité aristotélicien des Catégories, éclairé par les développements ultérieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment à travers le Commentaire du Néoplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces études examinent l’influence ou les transformations des catégories aristotéliciennes chez les Stoïciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l’Antiquité, les Néoplatoniciens tardifs, les Pères de l’Église et dans la tradition latine antique et médiévale. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"302","_score":null,"_source":{"id":302,"authors_free":[{"id":377,"entry_id":302,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","main_title":{"title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique"},"abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1980]}

Les catégories aristotéliciennes d’action et de passion vues par Simplicius, 1980
By: Vamvoukakis, Nicolas, Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Les catégories aristotéliciennes d’action et de passion vues par Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1980
Published in Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique
Pages 253-269
Categories no categories
Author(s) Vamvoukakis, Nicolas
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)
L’analyse du commentaire de Simplicius sur les catégories aristotéliciennes d’action et de passion (ou, plus exactement, d’«agir» et de «pâtir») est d’un intérêt multiple. Les notions mêmes sont d’une importance capitale aussi bien pour Aristote que pour le néoplatonisme tardif : en tant que catégories, elles désignent la mobilité, le dynamisme et la créativité de l’être ; en tant que réalités physiques ou métaphysiques désignées par ces mots, l’action et la passion sont directement liées à la théorie aristotélicienne de puissance, d’acte et de mouvement, et non moins à la problématique néoplatonicienne sur la Procession. L’importance du sujet fait du commentaire de Simplicius une bonne occasion pour manifester l’utilité de ce genre de commentaires pour la meilleure compréhension de la pensée aristotélicienne ; et cela d’autant plus que Simplicius consacre aux catégories d’action et de passion quarante pages de commentaire alors que le texte aristotélicien dans le traité des Catégories ne dépasse pas huit lignes. Par l’exposé exhaustif et raisonné de tous les points de vue concernant ces deux catégories, Simplicius nous offre un tableau aussi complet que possible des problèmes sur l’action et la passion qu’Aristote aurait pu ou aurait dû se poser lui-même dans son discours sur les Catégories. Ainsi l’examen portera sur les caractères principaux de l’action et de la passion, sur ce qui est le propre de chacune et justifie sa position comme une catégorie à part, sur le problème de la réductibilité de ces deux catégories aux autres ou à une seule et sur leur division en espèces. Toutes ces questions, prises dans leur généralité, sont indiscutablement conformes à l’esprit de l’auteur du traité des Catégories ; mais lorsqu’on aborde leur examen détaillé dans le commentaire de Simplicius, on est souvent étonné par l’intrusion d’éléments, surtout spéculatifs, qui, en apparence, relèvent d’un mode de pensée complètement étranger à celui d’Aristote. Mais, en fait, une étude serrée du commentaire montre qu’il est possible (et même nécessaire, si l’on veut tirer le meilleur parti de ce texte) de distinguer : les éléments purement aristotéliciens ; ceux qui, exprimés en termes néoplatoniciens, sont aisément transposables dans l’univers d’Aristote ; ceux qui prolongent la problématique aristotélicienne dans la perspective du néoplatonisme tardif. Ces prolongements ne sont pourtant pas dépourvus d’intérêt pour l’aristotélisme : en posant et en résolvant des problèmes qu’Aristote lui-même n’avait pas posés, mais qui, en dernière analyse, découlent de ses propres thèses, et auxquels on doit donc chercher une réponse même si Aristote ne l’a pas donnée, on comprend beaucoup plus à fond toutes les ramifications de sa problématique ; et de même par l’examen des réponses proposées ou en essayant de répondre soi-même à la place d’Aristote. D’où il ressort que la bonne compréhension et l’appréciation juste d’un commentaire de Simplicius sur Aristote présupposent une connaissance adéquate de la philosophie aristotélicienne ainsi qu’une certaine expérience des traits particuliers à la pensée et à la sensibilité des néoplatoniciens tardifs. Car ces commentaires ne sont pas exégétiques au sens, malheureusement si familier pour nous, de la paraphrase élaborée, mais, sans négliger les nuances, s’attaquent au cœur même des problèmes, sur lesquels ils proposent des solutions bien articulées. [introduction p. 253-254]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"455","_score":null,"_source":{"id":455,"authors_free":[{"id":611,"entry_id":455,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":344,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","free_first_name":"Nicolas","free_last_name":"Vamvoukakis","norm_person":{"id":344,"first_name":"Nicolas","last_name":"Vamvoukakis","full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":612,"entry_id":455,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion vues par Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion vues par Simplicius"},"abstract":"L\u2019analyse du commentaire de Simplicius sur les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion (ou, plus exactement, d\u2019\u00abagir\u00bb et de \u00abp\u00e2tir\u00bb) est d\u2019un int\u00e9r\u00eat multiple. Les notions m\u00eames sont d\u2019une importance capitale aussi bien pour Aristote que pour le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif : en tant que cat\u00e9gories, elles d\u00e9signent la mobilit\u00e9, le dynamisme et la cr\u00e9ativit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00eatre ; en tant que r\u00e9alit\u00e9s physiques ou m\u00e9taphysiques d\u00e9sign\u00e9es par ces mots, l\u2019action et la passion sont directement li\u00e9es \u00e0 la th\u00e9orie aristot\u00e9licienne de puissance, d\u2019acte et de mouvement, et non moins \u00e0 la probl\u00e9matique n\u00e9oplatonicienne sur la Procession.\r\n\r\nL\u2019importance du sujet fait du commentaire de Simplicius une bonne occasion pour manifester l\u2019utilit\u00e9 de ce genre de commentaires pour la meilleure compr\u00e9hension de la pens\u00e9e aristot\u00e9licienne ; et cela d\u2019autant plus que Simplicius consacre aux cat\u00e9gories d\u2019action et de passion quarante pages de commentaire alors que le texte aristot\u00e9licien dans le trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories ne d\u00e9passe pas huit lignes. Par l\u2019expos\u00e9 exhaustif et raisonn\u00e9 de tous les points de vue concernant ces deux cat\u00e9gories, Simplicius nous offre un tableau aussi complet que possible des probl\u00e8mes sur l\u2019action et la passion qu\u2019Aristote aurait pu ou aurait d\u00fb se poser lui-m\u00eame dans son discours sur les Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nAinsi l\u2019examen portera sur les caract\u00e8res principaux de l\u2019action et de la passion, sur ce qui est le propre de chacune et justifie sa position comme une cat\u00e9gorie \u00e0 part, sur le probl\u00e8me de la r\u00e9ductibilit\u00e9 de ces deux cat\u00e9gories aux autres ou \u00e0 une seule et sur leur division en esp\u00e8ces. Toutes ces questions, prises dans leur g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9, sont indiscutablement conformes \u00e0 l\u2019esprit de l\u2019auteur du trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories ; mais lorsqu\u2019on aborde leur examen d\u00e9taill\u00e9 dans le commentaire de Simplicius, on est souvent \u00e9tonn\u00e9 par l\u2019intrusion d\u2019\u00e9l\u00e9ments, surtout sp\u00e9culatifs, qui, en apparence, rel\u00e8vent d\u2019un mode de pens\u00e9e compl\u00e8tement \u00e9tranger \u00e0 celui d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nMais, en fait, une \u00e9tude serr\u00e9e du commentaire montre qu\u2019il est possible (et m\u00eame n\u00e9cessaire, si l\u2019on veut tirer le meilleur parti de ce texte) de distinguer :\r\n\r\n les \u00e9l\u00e9ments purement aristot\u00e9liciens ;\r\n ceux qui, exprim\u00e9s en termes n\u00e9oplatoniciens, sont ais\u00e9ment transposables dans l\u2019univers d\u2019Aristote ;\r\n ceux qui prolongent la probl\u00e9matique aristot\u00e9licienne dans la perspective du n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif.\r\n\r\nCes prolongements ne sont pourtant pas d\u00e9pourvus d\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat pour l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme : en posant et en r\u00e9solvant des probl\u00e8mes qu\u2019Aristote lui-m\u00eame n\u2019avait pas pos\u00e9s, mais qui, en derni\u00e8re analyse, d\u00e9coulent de ses propres th\u00e8ses, et auxquels on doit donc chercher une r\u00e9ponse m\u00eame si Aristote ne l\u2019a pas donn\u00e9e, on comprend beaucoup plus \u00e0 fond toutes les ramifications de sa probl\u00e9matique ; et de m\u00eame par l\u2019examen des r\u00e9ponses propos\u00e9es ou en essayant de r\u00e9pondre soi-m\u00eame \u00e0 la place d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nD\u2019o\u00f9 il ressort que la bonne compr\u00e9hension et l\u2019appr\u00e9ciation juste d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur Aristote pr\u00e9supposent une connaissance ad\u00e9quate de la philosophie aristot\u00e9licienne ainsi qu\u2019une certaine exp\u00e9rience des traits particuliers \u00e0 la pens\u00e9e et \u00e0 la sensibilit\u00e9 des n\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs. Car ces commentaires ne sont pas ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques au sens, malheureusement si familier pour nous, de la paraphrase \u00e9labor\u00e9e, mais, sans n\u00e9gliger les nuances, s\u2019attaquent au c\u0153ur m\u00eame des probl\u00e8mes, sur lesquels ils proposent des solutions bien articul\u00e9es. [introduction p. 253-254]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O07AYBHdocDRTVL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":344,"full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":455,"section_of":302,"pages":"253-269","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1980]}

Review of: Ilsetraut Hadot, Le problème du néoplatonisme Alexandrin, Hiéroclès et Simplicius, 1980
By: Steel, Carlos
Title Review of: Ilsetraut Hadot, Le problème du néoplatonisme Alexandrin, Hiéroclès et Simplicius
Type Article
Language Dutch
Date 1980
Journal Tijdschrift voor Filosofie
Volume 42
Issue 3
Pages 606-608
Categories no categories
Author(s) Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The whole review: In een historisch overzicht van de antieke wijsbegeerte wordt doorgaans, wanneer over het Neoplatonisme gehandeld wordt, een onderscheid gemaakt tussen de 'school' van Athene en die van Alexandrië. Dit onderscheid gaat terug op de bekende studies van K. Praechter (1910-12). Volgens deze geleerde zou er een opvallend doctrineel verschil bestaan tussen beide richtingen in het latere Neoplatonisme. In Alexandrië zou de invloed van de christelijke omgeving zo groot geweest zijn dat de heidense filosofen zich verplicht zagen bepaalde wijzigingen in de doctrine aan te brengen. Het Neoplatonisme vertoont hier niet de complexe structuur die kenmerkend is voor het Atheense speculatieve denken (cf. de hiërarchie van de goddelijke principes zoals die door Proclus ontwikkeld is); het geeft een eenvoudiger verklaring van de leer waarbij dikwijls teruggegrepen wordt naar het Midden-Platonisme (vóór Plotinus); op sommige gebieden (zoals de scheppingsleer) benadert het christelijke standpunten. Deze originaliteit van het Alexandrijnse Neoplatonisme komt het duidelijkst tot uiting in het œuvre van Hierocles (eerste helft 5de eeuw) en in de commentaar van Simplicius (eerste helft 6de eeuw) op Epictetus. Deze visie van Praechter werd kritiekloos overgenomen in talrijke studies over deze periode. Zo verscheen in 1976 nog een boek over Hierocles (Th. Kobusch, Studien zur Philosophie des Hierokles von Alexandrien, München) waarin de thesis verdedigd wordt dat Hierocles' filosofie „vermittelt“ tussen het Christendom en het „excessieve“ Neoplatonisme zoals het vooral door Proclus uitgewerkt is. „Die Interpretation ergab dass die Hierokleische Philosophie im wesentlichen auf vorneuplatonischer Basis beruht“ (Besluit, p. 193). Het boek van Mme Hadot, die sinds jaren een uitgave voorbereidt van Simplicius' commentaar op Epictetus, komt tot een conclusie die precies het tegenovergestelde beweert. Op grond van een nieuwe lectuur van Hierocles en Simplicius toont zij aan dat de hypothese van Praechter over het latere Neoplatonisme totaal ongegrond is; er bestaat geen enkel doctrineel verschil tussen het Atheense en het Alexandrijnse Neoplatonisme: „l'évolution du néoplatonisme s'est poursuivie d'une manière homogène“. Het is verkeerd Hierocles of Simplicius vanuit het Midden-Platonisme te willen interpreteren: hun uiteenzetting veronderstelt de ontwikkeling van het latere Neoplatonisme, wat kan geïllustreerd worden door talrijke parallelle passages met Iamblichus en Proclus, en zelfs – voor Simplicius – met Damascius. In het eerste deel van dit boek worden de historische gegevens over beide filosofen onderzocht. Het tweede deel onderzoekt in welke mate zij kunnen beschouwd worden als vertegenwoordigers van een originele Alexandrijnse traditie. Achtereenvolgens worden bestudeerd: de theologie van Simplicius in het Epictetus-commentaar, de opvattingen van Hierocles over de ontwikkeling van het Platonisme, over de materie, over de demiurg en de schepping, over de voorzienigheid en het noodlot. In het derde deel volgen enige capita selecta betreffende de commentaar van Simplicius (o.a. zijn leer over de ziel). Uit al deze analyses komt de auteur tot het besluit dat er geen enkele doctrinaire divergentie aan te wijzen is ten opzichte van de Atheense school. Wel geven beide werken – de commentaar van Hierocles op Pythagoras en die van Simplicius op Epictetus – een eenvoudiger en minder complexe versie van het Neoplatonisme. Dit kan echter verklaard worden door het feit dat beide commentaren bedoeld waren als inleidingen en gericht tot beginnelingen in de school. In een appendix gaat de auteur uitvoerig in op een artikel dat ik zelf samen met F. Bossier in dit tijdschrift gepubliceerd heb (1972, 761-822) over de authenticiteit van de De Anima-commentaar die aan Simplicius wordt toegeschreven. Alhoewel zij onze conclusie aanvaardt – het werk is waarschijnlijk door Priscianus Lydus geschreven – toch meent zij dat er geen enkel doctrineel verschil met de authentieke Simplicius kan aangewezen worden. Haar argumenten lijken ons soms erg zwak: het is echter niet mogelijk om hierover in deze recensie polemiek te voeren. Slechts één ding: indien men aanvaardt dat de In de Anima door iemand anders geschreven is dan Simplicius, waarom is het dan zo nodig te beklemtonen dat zijn opvattingen over de ziel in niets van die van Simplicius verschillen? Dit bezwaar geldt ook voor het gehele werk. Terecht wijst de auteur op de continuïteit die er bestond tussen de school van Athene en die van Alexandrië (zoals dit o.m. tot uiting komt in de veelvuldige persoonlijke relaties van docenten en studenten). Het lijkt ons echter overdreven elk doctrineel verschil tussen beide scholen te ontkennen. De ontwikkeling binnen het latere Neoplatonisme was zeker niet zo homogeen als mevrouw Hadot beweert. Reeds ten tijde van Plotinus bestonden er belangrijke controversen over de doctrine, en die discussies werden verder gezet in de latere school. Indien men de originaliteit van de Alexandrijnse school in vraag stelt, dan volstaat het niet Hierocles en één werk van Simplicius te onderzoeken. Men zou er ook de andere filosofen uit de school moeten bij betrekken, voornamelijk Ammonius. Men kan moeilijk betwisten dat het Neoplatonisme dat door Ammonius uiteengezet werd nogal verschillend is van het systeem van Damascius. En is het ook niet opvallend dat Simplicius, die zowel bij Ammonius als Damascius studeerde, dikwijls afstand neemt van de al te speculatieve beschouwingen van Iamblichus en Damascius? Het boek van mevrouw Hadot is, zoals de auteur zelf toegeeft, vooral polemisch van aard: zij weerlegt hypothesen en interpretaties die niet op de teksten gegrond zijn. Door een nauwkeurige analyse van de teksten ontmaskert zij het stereotiepe beeld dat men over het Alexandrijnse Neoplatonisme geeft. Haar studie is zo een waardevolle bijdrage tot beter inzicht in deze laatste ontwikkeling van het antieke denken. [p. 606-608]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"484","_score":null,"_source":{"id":484,"authors_free":[{"id":659,"entry_id":484,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: Ilsetraut Hadot, Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin, Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Ilsetraut Hadot, Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin, Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius"},"abstract":"The whole review: In een historisch overzicht van de antieke wijsbegeerte wordt doorgaans, wanneer over het Neoplatonisme gehandeld wordt, een onderscheid gemaakt tussen de 'school' van Athene en die van Alexandri\u00eb. Dit onderscheid gaat terug op de bekende studies van K. Praechter (1910-12). Volgens deze geleerde zou er een opvallend doctrineel verschil bestaan tussen beide richtingen in het latere Neoplatonisme. In Alexandri\u00eb zou de invloed van de christelijke omgeving zo groot geweest zijn dat de heidense filosofen zich verplicht zagen bepaalde wijzigingen in de doctrine aan te brengen.\r\n\r\nHet Neoplatonisme vertoont hier niet de complexe structuur die kenmerkend is voor het Atheense speculatieve denken (cf. de hi\u00ebrarchie van de goddelijke principes zoals die door Proclus ontwikkeld is); het geeft een eenvoudiger verklaring van de leer waarbij dikwijls teruggegrepen wordt naar het Midden-Platonisme (v\u00f3\u00f3r Plotinus); op sommige gebieden (zoals de scheppingsleer) benadert het christelijke standpunten. Deze originaliteit van het Alexandrijnse Neoplatonisme komt het duidelijkst tot uiting in het \u0153uvre van Hierocles (eerste helft 5de eeuw) en in de commentaar van Simplicius (eerste helft 6de eeuw) op Epictetus.\r\n\r\nDeze visie van Praechter werd kritiekloos overgenomen in talrijke studies over deze periode. Zo verscheen in 1976 nog een boek over Hierocles (Th. Kobusch, Studien zur Philosophie des Hierokles von Alexandrien, M\u00fcnchen) waarin de thesis verdedigd wordt dat Hierocles' filosofie \u201evermittelt\u201c tussen het Christendom en het \u201eexcessieve\u201c Neoplatonisme zoals het vooral door Proclus uitgewerkt is. \u201eDie Interpretation ergab dass die Hierokleische Philosophie im wesentlichen auf vorneuplatonischer Basis beruht\u201c (Besluit, p. 193).\r\n\r\nHet boek van Mme Hadot, die sinds jaren een uitgave voorbereidt van Simplicius' commentaar op Epictetus, komt tot een conclusie die precies het tegenovergestelde beweert. Op grond van een nieuwe lectuur van Hierocles en Simplicius toont zij aan dat de hypothese van Praechter over het latere Neoplatonisme totaal ongegrond is; er bestaat geen enkel doctrineel verschil tussen het Atheense en het Alexandrijnse Neoplatonisme: \u201el'\u00e9volution du n\u00e9oplatonisme s'est poursuivie d'une mani\u00e8re homog\u00e8ne\u201c.\r\n\r\nHet is verkeerd Hierocles of Simplicius vanuit het Midden-Platonisme te willen interpreteren: hun uiteenzetting veronderstelt de ontwikkeling van het latere Neoplatonisme, wat kan ge\u00efllustreerd worden door talrijke parallelle passages met Iamblichus en Proclus, en zelfs \u2013 voor Simplicius \u2013 met Damascius.\r\n\r\nIn het eerste deel van dit boek worden de historische gegevens over beide filosofen onderzocht. Het tweede deel onderzoekt in welke mate zij kunnen beschouwd worden als vertegenwoordigers van een originele Alexandrijnse traditie. Achtereenvolgens worden bestudeerd: de theologie van Simplicius in het Epictetus-commentaar, de opvattingen van Hierocles over de ontwikkeling van het Platonisme, over de materie, over de demiurg en de schepping, over de voorzienigheid en het noodlot. In het derde deel volgen enige capita selecta betreffende de commentaar van Simplicius (o.a. zijn leer over de ziel).\r\n\r\nUit al deze analyses komt de auteur tot het besluit dat er geen enkele doctrinaire divergentie aan te wijzen is ten opzichte van de Atheense school. Wel geven beide werken \u2013 de commentaar van Hierocles op Pythagoras en die van Simplicius op Epictetus \u2013 een eenvoudiger en minder complexe versie van het Neoplatonisme. Dit kan echter verklaard worden door het feit dat beide commentaren bedoeld waren als inleidingen en gericht tot beginnelingen in de school.\r\n\r\nIn een appendix gaat de auteur uitvoerig in op een artikel dat ik zelf samen met F. Bossier in dit tijdschrift gepubliceerd heb (1972, 761-822) over de authenticiteit van de De Anima-commentaar die aan Simplicius wordt toegeschreven. Alhoewel zij onze conclusie aanvaardt \u2013 het werk is waarschijnlijk door Priscianus Lydus geschreven \u2013 toch meent zij dat er geen enkel doctrineel verschil met de authentieke Simplicius kan aangewezen worden.\r\n\r\nHaar argumenten lijken ons soms erg zwak: het is echter niet mogelijk om hierover in deze recensie polemiek te voeren. Slechts \u00e9\u00e9n ding: indien men aanvaardt dat de In de Anima door iemand anders geschreven is dan Simplicius, waarom is het dan zo nodig te beklemtonen dat zijn opvattingen over de ziel in niets van die van Simplicius verschillen?\r\n\r\nDit bezwaar geldt ook voor het gehele werk. Terecht wijst de auteur op de continu\u00efteit die er bestond tussen de school van Athene en die van Alexandri\u00eb (zoals dit o.m. tot uiting komt in de veelvuldige persoonlijke relaties van docenten en studenten). Het lijkt ons echter overdreven elk doctrineel verschil tussen beide scholen te ontkennen.\r\n\r\nDe ontwikkeling binnen het latere Neoplatonisme was zeker niet zo homogeen als mevrouw Hadot beweert. Reeds ten tijde van Plotinus bestonden er belangrijke controversen over de doctrine, en die discussies werden verder gezet in de latere school. Indien men de originaliteit van de Alexandrijnse school in vraag stelt, dan volstaat het niet Hierocles en \u00e9\u00e9n werk van Simplicius te onderzoeken. Men zou er ook de andere filosofen uit de school moeten bij betrekken, voornamelijk Ammonius.\r\n\r\nMen kan moeilijk betwisten dat het Neoplatonisme dat door Ammonius uiteengezet werd nogal verschillend is van het systeem van Damascius. En is het ook niet opvallend dat Simplicius, die zowel bij Ammonius als Damascius studeerde, dikwijls afstand neemt van de al te speculatieve beschouwingen van Iamblichus en Damascius?\r\n\r\nHet boek van mevrouw Hadot is, zoals de auteur zelf toegeeft, vooral polemisch van aard: zij weerlegt hypothesen en interpretaties die niet op de teksten gegrond zijn. Door een nauwkeurige analyse van de teksten ontmaskert zij het stereotiepe beeld dat men over het Alexandrijnse Neoplatonisme geeft. Haar studie is zo een waardevolle bijdrage tot beter inzicht in deze laatste ontwikkeling van het antieke denken. [p. 606-608]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lIWBQQ2Q5dbWMLm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":484,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Tijdschrift voor Filosofie","volume":"42","issue":"3","pages":"606-608"}},"sort":[1980]}

Les catégories ΠΟΙ et ΠΟΤΕ chez Aristote et Simplicius, 1980
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Les catégories ΠΟΙ et ΠΟΤΕ chez Aristote et Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1980
Published in Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique
Pages 217-245
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)
L'exposé que l'on va lire ne se propose pas d'étudier les concepts de lieu ou de temps chez Aristote et son commentateur Simplicius, mais de scruter les quelques indications qu’Aristote, dans son Traité des Catégories, nous donne sur les prédicats ποῦ et ποτέ, ou que l'on peut trouver dans certains passages de Physique IV. La matière fournie par les textes aristotéliciens étant peu abondante, notre attention se portera principalement sur le Commentaire de Simplicius. Si les catégories ποῦ et ποτέ ne se confondent pas avec les concepts de lieu et de temps, c’est pourtant par rapport à eux, c'est-à-dire par différence avec eux, qu'elles prennent sens et consistance. C'est pourquoi, et bien que ce ne soit qu’à titre secondaire, la méditation sur le temps et le lieu nourrit le commentaire de Simplicius, chez qui elle fonde (ainsi d’ailleurs que chez nombre de commentateurs antérieurs) l'ordre relatif des deux catégories : selon que le temps ou le lieu est considéré comme plus « proche » de l'essence, plus « apparenté » à elle, la catégorie ποῦ (ou la catégorie ποτέ) se situera plus près de l’ousia dans la liste des catégories. Tel étant le critère du classement, l'analyse catégoriale court toujours le risque d’être remplacée par une étude « physique » du temps ou du lieu. Mais Simplicius situe la doctrine des catégories au niveau d’une étude des signifiés et des significations. Un second danger se présente alors, qui est de confondre l'analyse catégoriale et l'analyse grammaticale des « parties du discours ». En effet, les catégories ποῦ et ποτέ correspondent presque exclusivement à deux classes d’adverbes, qui sont, respectivement, les adverbes de lieu et les adverbes de temps. Nous verrons que Simplicius, analysant et classant les significations des adverbes (et compléments) de lieu, ne fait que reprendre, sur ce point, la doctrine grammaticale classique, telle qu'on la voit exposée dans la Grammaire de Denys le Thrace, dans les scholies relatives à cette grammaire, ou chez un auteur comme Apollonius Dyscole. Guidé par l'idée d’une étroite parenté entre les catégories ποῦ et ποτέ, Simplicius étudie les adverbes de temps en suivant comme modèle la doctrine grammaticale des adverbes de lieu. À la suite de Jamblique, il défend, contre les attaques de Plotin, la thèse soutenue par Aristote dans son Traité des Catégories : ποτέ et ποῦ sont des catégories distinctes et propres, tandis que temps et lieu relèvent de la quantité. Pour fonder cette distinction, Jamblique et Simplicius établissent que ποῦ signifie « la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu », et ποτέ « la relation au temps de ce qui est dans le temps ». D'autre part, ποῦ et ποτέ se différencient des relatifs, en ce que la relation constitutive de ces derniers est convertible, ce qui n’est pas le cas de la relation constitutive de ces deux catégories : il s'agit, par exemple, de la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu, et non de la relation du lieu à ce qui est en lui. [introduction p. 217-218]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"508","_score":null,"_source":{"id":508,"authors_free":[{"id":702,"entry_id":508,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":703,"entry_id":508,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les cat\u00e9gories \u03a0\u039f\u0399 et \u03a0\u039f\u03a4\u0395 chez Aristote et Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Les cat\u00e9gories \u03a0\u039f\u0399 et \u03a0\u039f\u03a4\u0395 chez Aristote et Simplicius"},"abstract":"L'expos\u00e9 que l'on va lire ne se propose pas d'\u00e9tudier les concepts de lieu ou de temps chez Aristote et son commentateur Simplicius, mais de scruter les quelques indications qu\u2019Aristote, dans son Trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories, nous donne sur les pr\u00e9dicats \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad, ou que l'on peut trouver dans certains passages de Physique IV. La mati\u00e8re fournie par les textes aristot\u00e9liciens \u00e9tant peu abondante, notre attention se portera principalement sur le Commentaire de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nSi les cat\u00e9gories \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad ne se confondent pas avec les concepts de lieu et de temps, c\u2019est pourtant par rapport \u00e0 eux, c'est-\u00e0-dire par diff\u00e9rence avec eux, qu'elles prennent sens et consistance. C'est pourquoi, et bien que ce ne soit qu\u2019\u00e0 titre secondaire, la m\u00e9ditation sur le temps et le lieu nourrit le commentaire de Simplicius, chez qui elle fonde (ainsi d\u2019ailleurs que chez nombre de commentateurs ant\u00e9rieurs) l'ordre relatif des deux cat\u00e9gories : selon que le temps ou le lieu est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme plus \u00ab proche \u00bb de l'essence, plus \u00ab apparent\u00e9 \u00bb \u00e0 elle, la cat\u00e9gorie \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 (ou la cat\u00e9gorie \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad) se situera plus pr\u00e8s de l\u2019ousia dans la liste des cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nTel \u00e9tant le crit\u00e8re du classement, l'analyse cat\u00e9goriale court toujours le risque d\u2019\u00eatre remplac\u00e9e par une \u00e9tude \u00ab physique \u00bb du temps ou du lieu. Mais Simplicius situe la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories au niveau d\u2019une \u00e9tude des signifi\u00e9s et des significations. Un second danger se pr\u00e9sente alors, qui est de confondre l'analyse cat\u00e9goriale et l'analyse grammaticale des \u00ab parties du discours \u00bb. En effet, les cat\u00e9gories \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad correspondent presque exclusivement \u00e0 deux classes d\u2019adverbes, qui sont, respectivement, les adverbes de lieu et les adverbes de temps.\r\n\r\nNous verrons que Simplicius, analysant et classant les significations des adverbes (et compl\u00e9ments) de lieu, ne fait que reprendre, sur ce point, la doctrine grammaticale classique, telle qu'on la voit expos\u00e9e dans la Grammaire de Denys le Thrace, dans les scholies relatives \u00e0 cette grammaire, ou chez un auteur comme Apollonius Dyscole. Guid\u00e9 par l'id\u00e9e d\u2019une \u00e9troite parent\u00e9 entre les cat\u00e9gories \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad, Simplicius \u00e9tudie les adverbes de temps en suivant comme mod\u00e8le la doctrine grammaticale des adverbes de lieu.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 la suite de Jamblique, il d\u00e9fend, contre les attaques de Plotin, la th\u00e8se soutenue par Aristote dans son Trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories : \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad et \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 sont des cat\u00e9gories distinctes et propres, tandis que temps et lieu rel\u00e8vent de la quantit\u00e9. Pour fonder cette distinction, Jamblique et Simplicius \u00e9tablissent que \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 signifie \u00ab la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu \u00bb, et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad \u00ab la relation au temps de ce qui est dans le temps \u00bb.\r\n\r\nD'autre part, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad se diff\u00e9rencient des relatifs, en ce que la relation constitutive de ces derniers est convertible, ce qui n\u2019est pas le cas de la relation constitutive de ces deux cat\u00e9gories : il s'agit, par exemple, de la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu, et non de la relation du lieu \u00e0 ce qui est en lui. [introduction p. 217-218]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NQv0lwgedEPlhBo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":508,"section_of":302,"pages":"217-245","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1980]}

Le temps intégral selon Damascius, 1980
By: Galperine, Marie-Claire
Title Le temps intégral selon Damascius
Type Article
Language French
Date 1980
Journal Les Études philosophiques
Volume 3: Doctrines du temps
Pages 325-341
Categories no categories
Author(s) Galperine, Marie-Claire
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This text explores Aristotle's unresolved aporias on the nature of time in Physics IV (217b30 - 218a30), highlighting a metaphysical dilemma: whether time belongs to being or non-being. Aristotle leaves the question undecided, shifting focus to the nature of time, a problem he may have deliberately avoided. Ancient thinkers, however, did not shy away from addressing these aporias. Damascius offers a resolution to Aristotle’s dilemmas in his commentary on Plato’s Parmenides and his lost treatise on number, place, and time, fragments of which are preserved by Simplicius. Damascius’ concept of "integral time" distinguishes between two meanings of "now": Aristotle’s punctual "now," a limit of time, and Damascius’ "present," a temporal continuum. Simplicius, though critical of Damascius’ ideas, acknowledges this distinction as key to resolving Aristotle’s aporias. Simplicius' Corollarium de tempore expands on this, presenting time as simultaneously existent in its entirety ("integral time"), a concept rooted in Damascius’ philosophy. However, Simplicius’ partial understanding of Damascius’ thought highlights his struggle to reconcile Damascius’ notion of time with Aristotelian paradigms. The analysis situates Damascius’ ideas within the framework of both Plato’s Parmenides and Aristotle’s Physics, showcasing how he integrates Platonic metaphysics with Aristotelian logic to address foundational questions about the nature and being of time. [introduction p. 325-327]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"544","_score":null,"_source":{"id":544,"authors_free":[{"id":768,"entry_id":544,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":123,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Galperine, Marie-Claire","free_first_name":"Marie-Claire","free_last_name":"Galperine","norm_person":{"id":123,"first_name":"Marie-Claire","last_name":"Galperine","full_name":"Galperine, Marie-Claire","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le temps int\u00e9gral selon Damascius","main_title":{"title":"Le temps int\u00e9gral selon Damascius"},"abstract":"This text explores Aristotle's unresolved aporias on the nature of time in Physics IV (217b30 - 218a30), highlighting a metaphysical dilemma: whether time belongs to being or non-being. Aristotle leaves the question undecided, shifting focus to the nature of time, a problem he may have deliberately avoided. Ancient thinkers, however, did not shy away from addressing these aporias.\r\n\r\nDamascius offers a resolution to Aristotle\u2019s dilemmas in his commentary on Plato\u2019s Parmenides and his lost treatise on number, place, and time, fragments of which are preserved by Simplicius. Damascius\u2019 concept of \"integral time\" distinguishes between two meanings of \"now\": Aristotle\u2019s punctual \"now,\" a limit of time, and Damascius\u2019 \"present,\" a temporal continuum. Simplicius, though critical of Damascius\u2019 ideas, acknowledges this distinction as key to resolving Aristotle\u2019s aporias.\r\n\r\nSimplicius' Corollarium de tempore expands on this, presenting time as simultaneously existent in its entirety (\"integral time\"), a concept rooted in Damascius\u2019 philosophy. However, Simplicius\u2019 partial understanding of Damascius\u2019 thought highlights his struggle to reconcile Damascius\u2019 notion of time with Aristotelian paradigms.\r\n\r\nThe analysis situates Damascius\u2019 ideas within the framework of both Plato\u2019s Parmenides and Aristotle\u2019s Physics, showcasing how he integrates Platonic metaphysics with Aristotelian logic to address foundational questions about the nature and being of time. [introduction p. 325-327]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/K2X5R1lQigoI37E","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":123,"full_name":"Galperine, Marie-Claire","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":544,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques","volume":"3: Doctrines du temps","issue":"","pages":"325-341"}},"sort":[1980]}

La Récupération d'Anaxagore II, 1980
By: Ramnoux, Clémence
Title La Récupération d'Anaxagore II
Type Article
Language French
Date 1980
Journal Archives de Philosophie
Volume 43
Pages 279-297
Categories no categories
Author(s) Ramnoux, Clémence
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The text discusses the concept of the mind and plurality of worlds in Anaxagoras' philosophy. It focuses on a fragment that is the longest and most extensive in relation to the mind. The author explores the vocabulary used by Anaxagoras to articulate his doctrine and how it uses oppositions such as one and multiple, similar and different, light and dark, hot and cold, dry and wet to categorize things. The author also discusses Anaxagoras' use of the concept of infinity in relation to both numbers and spatial dimensions. The text also highlights the attributes of the mind, such as its spatial greatness, lightness, and purity, which allow for quick movement and perception. The author concludes that Anaxagoras' conception of the mind is not divine, but rather characterized by its separation from everything else. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1379","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1379,"authors_free":[{"id":2123,"entry_id":1379,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":295,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ramnoux, Cl\u00e9mence","free_first_name":"Cl\u00e9mence","free_last_name":"Ramnoux","norm_person":{"id":295,"first_name":"Cl\u00e9mence","last_name":"Ramnoux","full_name":"Ramnoux, Cl\u00e9mence","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1219538949","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La R\u00e9cup\u00e9ration d'Anaxagore II","main_title":{"title":"La R\u00e9cup\u00e9ration d'Anaxagore II"},"abstract":"The text discusses the concept of the mind and plurality of worlds in Anaxagoras' philosophy. It focuses on a fragment that is the longest and most extensive in relation to the mind. The author explores the vocabulary used by Anaxagoras to articulate his doctrine and how it uses oppositions such as one and multiple, similar and different, light and dark, hot and cold, dry and wet to categorize things. The author also discusses Anaxagoras' use of the concept of infinity in relation to both numbers and spatial dimensions. The text also highlights the attributes of the mind, such as its spatial greatness, lightness, and purity, which allow for quick movement and perception. The author concludes that Anaxagoras' conception of the mind is not divine, but rather characterized by its separation from everything else. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5IeMTnUXyCXR7VK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":295,"full_name":"Ramnoux, Cl\u00e9mence","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1379,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archives de Philosophie","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"279-297"}},"sort":[1980]}

The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius, 1979
By: Bormann, Karl
Title The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius
Type Article
Language English
Date 1979
Journal The Monist
Volume 62
Issue 1
Pages 30–42
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bormann, Karl
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The doctrines of Parmenides of the one being and of the world of seeming were—as is well known—interpreted in different ways in the course of the history of philosophy, and even in twentieth-century historic-philosophical research, there is no agreement on the meaning of the two parts of the poem.Regarding the one being, there are four attempts of explanation to be distinguished: (1) The being is material; (2) the being is immaterial; (3) it is the esse copulae or must be seen as a modal category; (4) it is the entity of being ("Sein des Seienden"). This latter interpretation, if we can call it an interpretation, is chiefly influenced by Heidegger. The Doxa-part, however, is seen as (1) a more or less critical demography; (2) a second-best, hypothetic explanation of phenomena which is not truth but verisimilitude; (3) a systematic unit together with the First part, the aletheia. We do not have to discuss the differences between the outlined explanations separately; in the following, we shall show that some modern interpretations were already expressed in a similar way in antiquity. With this, we shall concentrate especially on the Neoplatonist Simplicius who in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics expounds the first part of the Parmenidean poem completely and, in addition, the most important doctrines of the second part. [Introduction, p. 30]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1078","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1078,"authors_free":[{"id":1634,"entry_id":1078,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":11,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bormann, Karl ","free_first_name":"Karl","free_last_name":"Bormann","norm_person":{"id":11,"first_name":"Karl ","last_name":"Bormann","full_name":"Bormann, Karl ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119138816","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius"},"abstract":"The doctrines of Parmenides of the one being and of the world of seeming were\u2014as is well known\u2014interpreted in different ways in the course of the history of philosophy, and even in twentieth-century historic-philosophical research, there is no agreement on the meaning of the two parts of the poem.Regarding the one being, there are four attempts of explanation to be distinguished: (1) The being is material; (2) the being is immaterial; (3) it is the esse copulae or must be seen as a modal category; (4) it is the entity of being (\"Sein des Seienden\"). This latter interpretation, if we can call it an interpretation, is chiefly influenced by Heidegger. The Doxa-part, however, is seen as (1) a more or less critical demography; (2) a second-best, hypothetic explanation of phenomena which is not truth but verisimilitude; (3) a systematic unit together with the First part, the aletheia. We do not have to discuss the differences between the outlined explanations separately; in the following, we shall show that some modern interpretations were already expressed in a similar way in antiquity. With this, we shall concentrate especially on the Neoplatonist Simplicius who in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics expounds the first part of the Parmenidean poem completely and, in addition, the most important doctrines of the second part. [Introduction, p. 30]","btype":3,"date":"1979","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KVjmlyMlPhuG3iK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":11,"full_name":"Bormann, Karl ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1078,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Monist","volume":"62","issue":"1","pages":"30\u201342"}},"sort":[1979]}

Confirmation of Two "Conjectures" in the Presocratics: Parmenides B 12 and Anaxagoras B 15, 1979
By: Sider, David
Title Confirmation of Two "Conjectures" in the Presocratics: Parmenides B 12 and Anaxagoras B 15
Type Article
Language English
Date 1979
Journal Phoenix
Volume 33
Issue 1
Pages 67-69
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sider, David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In each of the two passages discussed below, the indisputably correct reading is given by Diels as an editorial conjecture, when in fact, for each, there is manuscript authority. [introduction p. 67]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"850","_score":null,"_source":{"id":850,"authors_free":[{"id":1254,"entry_id":850,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":320,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sider, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Sider","norm_person":{"id":320,"first_name":"David","last_name":"Sider","full_name":"Sider, David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1129478610","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Confirmation of Two \"Conjectures\" in the Presocratics: Parmenides B 12 and Anaxagoras B 15","main_title":{"title":"Confirmation of Two \"Conjectures\" in the Presocratics: Parmenides B 12 and Anaxagoras B 15"},"abstract":"In each of the two passages discussed below, the indisputably correct reading is given by Diels as an editorial conjecture, when in fact, for each, there is manuscript authority. [introduction p. 67]","btype":3,"date":"1979","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RDFVugAzW2NIhCB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":320,"full_name":"Sider, David","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":850,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phoenix","volume":"33","issue":"1","pages":"67-69"}},"sort":[1979]}

L'Astronomie dans l'antiquité classique. Actes du Colloque tenu à l'Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21–23 Octobre, 1977, 1979
By: Aujac, Germaine (Ed.), Soubiran, Jean (Ed.)
Title L'Astronomie dans l'antiquité classique. Actes du Colloque tenu à l'Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21–23 Octobre, 1977
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1979
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Les Belles Lettres
Series Collection d'Études Anciennes
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Aujac, Germaine , Soubiran, Jean
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"140","_score":null,"_source":{"id":140,"authors_free":[{"id":175,"entry_id":140,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":183,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aujac, Germaine","free_first_name":"Germaine","free_last_name":"Aujac","norm_person":{"id":183,"first_name":"Germaine","last_name":"Aujac","full_name":"Aujac, Germaine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132761629","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":176,"entry_id":140,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":184,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Soubiran, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"Soubiran","norm_person":{"id":184,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"Soubiran","full_name":"Soubiran, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124279694","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'Astronomie dans l'antiquit\u00e9 classique. Actes du Colloque tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21\u201323 Octobre, 1977","main_title":{"title":"L'Astronomie dans l'antiquit\u00e9 classique. Actes du Colloque tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21\u201323 Octobre, 1977"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1979","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TPeLfUa6KvbM1BN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":183,"full_name":"Aujac, Germaine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":184,"full_name":"Soubiran, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":140,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Anciennes","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1979]}

Simplicius: Corollarium de loco, 1979
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Aujac, Germaine (Ed.), Soubiran, Jean (Ed.)
Title Simplicius: Corollarium de loco
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1979
Published in L'Astronomie dans l'antiquité classique. Actes du Colloque tenu à l'Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21–23 Octobre, 1977
Pages 143-161
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Aujac, Germaine , Soubiran, Jean
Translator(s)
En conclusion : La définition aristotélicienne du lieu comme « première limite immobile de l'enveloppant » tente de concilier deux exigences contradictoires : le lieu est une enveloppe et il est immobile. Aristote est contraint de dire que le Monde n'est pas en un lieu, puisqu'il n'est enveloppé par rien : s'il n'est nulle part, il ne peut non plus se mouvoir localement, ce qui est en contradiction avec l'« expérience » et avec d’autres exigences du système (la dignité du mouvement circulaire uniforme et éternel convient à la substance céleste). Proclus, sur la base de la problématique aristotélicienne, interprète l'enveloppement par le lieu du corps situé en lui comme une compénétration totale de l’un et de l'autre. Sa solution est plus physique et plus cosmologique que celle de Damascius : le lieu est une sphère corporelle de lumière pure en coïncidence parfaite avec la sphère cosmique. Le lieu est immobile, tandis que l'Univers se meut en lui. Damascius propose une solution plus métaphysique : le lieu est la mesure (incorporelle, quoique sensible) de la position. L'Univers a un lieu fixe, son lieu essentiel, d'où procèdent les lieux successifs qui sont les siens au cours de son mouvement. Proclus et Damascius, chacun à leur manière, établissent donc : que le Monde a un lieu (fixe) ; que le Monde se meut localement. Ils triomphent ainsi des apories dans lesquelles s'engageait la pensée d'Aristote. [conclusion p. 161]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"510","_score":null,"_source":{"id":510,"authors_free":[{"id":707,"entry_id":510,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":708,"entry_id":510,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":183,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aujac, Germaine","free_first_name":"Germaine","free_last_name":"Aujac","norm_person":{"id":183,"first_name":"Germaine","last_name":"Aujac","full_name":"Aujac, Germaine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132761629","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":709,"entry_id":510,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":184,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Soubiran, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"Soubiran","norm_person":{"id":184,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"Soubiran","full_name":"Soubiran, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124279694","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius: Corollarium de loco","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius: Corollarium de loco"},"abstract":"En conclusion : La d\u00e9finition aristot\u00e9licienne du lieu comme \u00ab premi\u00e8re limite immobile de l'enveloppant \u00bb tente de concilier deux exigences contradictoires : le lieu est une enveloppe et il est immobile. Aristote est contraint de dire que le Monde n'est pas en un lieu, puisqu'il n'est envelopp\u00e9 par rien : s'il n'est nulle part, il ne peut non plus se mouvoir localement, ce qui est en contradiction avec l'\u00ab exp\u00e9rience \u00bb et avec d\u2019autres exigences du syst\u00e8me (la dignit\u00e9 du mouvement circulaire uniforme et \u00e9ternel convient \u00e0 la substance c\u00e9leste).\r\n\r\n Proclus, sur la base de la probl\u00e9matique aristot\u00e9licienne, interpr\u00e8te l'enveloppement par le lieu du corps situ\u00e9 en lui comme une comp\u00e9n\u00e9tration totale de l\u2019un et de l'autre. Sa solution est plus physique et plus cosmologique que celle de Damascius : le lieu est une sph\u00e8re corporelle de lumi\u00e8re pure en co\u00efncidence parfaite avec la sph\u00e8re cosmique. Le lieu est immobile, tandis que l'Univers se meut en lui.\r\n\r\n Damascius propose une solution plus m\u00e9taphysique : le lieu est la mesure (incorporelle, quoique sensible) de la position. L'Univers a un lieu fixe, son lieu essentiel, d'o\u00f9 proc\u00e8dent les lieux successifs qui sont les siens au cours de son mouvement.\r\n\r\nProclus et Damascius, chacun \u00e0 leur mani\u00e8re, \u00e9tablissent donc :\r\n\r\n que le Monde a un lieu (fixe) ;\r\n que le Monde se meut localement.\r\n\r\nIls triomphent ainsi des apories dans lesquelles s'engageait la pens\u00e9e d'Aristote. [conclusion p. 161]","btype":2,"date":"1979","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2CpsO1R1mVMqjay","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":183,"full_name":"Aujac, Germaine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":184,"full_name":"Soubiran, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":510,"section_of":140,"pages":"143-161","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":140,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"L'Astronomie dans l'antiquit\u00e9 classique. Actes du Colloque tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21\u201323 Octobre, 1977","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aujac\/Soubiran1979","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1979","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1979","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TPeLfUa6KvbM1BN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":140,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Anciennes","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1979]}

Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy, 1978
By: Tarán, Leonardo
Title Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy
Type Article
Language English
Date 1978
Journal Hermes
Volume 106
Issue 1
Pages 73-99
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarán, Leonardo
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Modern scholarship since the middle of the last century has generally accepted it as an established fact that Speusippus made an exhaustive classification of words or names (onomata) in relation to the concepts they express and that he gave definitions of homonyma and synonyma only in reference to words and their meanings. That is to say, for him, homonyma and synonyma are properties of linguistic terms and not of things, whereas for Aristotle, especially in the first chapter of the Categories, they are properties of things. In 1904, E. Hambruch attempted to show that sometimes Aristotle himself uses synonyma in the Speusippean sense just outlined and that in so doing, he was influenced by Speusippus. This thesis of Hambruch has been accepted by several scholars, including Lang, Stenzel, and Cherniss. Although some doubts about its soundness were expressed from different perspectives, it was only in 1971 that Mr. Jonathan Barnes made a systematic assault on it. Barnes contends, first, that Speusippus’s conception of homonyma and synonyma is essentially the same as that of Aristotle, with the slight differences between their respective definitions being trivial, and second, that even though Aristotle occasionally uses homonyma and synonyma as properties of linguistic terms, this is because Aristotle's use of these words is not as rigid as the Categories might suggest. Barnes argues that Aristotle could not have been influenced by Speusippus, because Speusippus conceived homonymy and synonymy as properties of things, and, in any case, if influence were assumed, it could as well have been Aristotle influencing Speusippus. Though I believe Barnes’ two main contentions are mistaken, I am here mainly concerned with the first part of his thesis. If he were right in believing that, for Speusippus, homonyma and synonyma are properties of things and not of names or linguistic terms, then Hambruch’s notion that Speusippus influenced Aristotle when the latter uses synonymon as a property of names would be wrong, even if Barnes were mistaken in his analysis of the Aristotelian passages he reviews in the second part of his paper. On the other hand, if Speusippus's classification is truly of onomata, then, since Barnes himself admits that Aristotle sometimes uses homonyma and synonyma as properties of names, the influence of Speusippus on Aristotle is at least possible. It becomes plausible and probable—regardless of the relative chronology of their respective works—when it is seen, as I shall try to show, that in some cases, Aristotle is in fact attacking doctrines that presuppose a use of homonyma and synonyma such as can be ascribed to Speusippus or is using synonymon in the Speusippean sense, different from Aristotle's own notion of synonymous words. [introduction p. 73-75]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"843","_score":null,"_source":{"id":843,"authors_free":[{"id":1247,"entry_id":843,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy","main_title":{"title":"Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy"},"abstract":"Modern scholarship since the middle of the last century has generally accepted it as an established fact that Speusippus made an exhaustive classification of words or names (onomata) in relation to the concepts they express and that he gave definitions of homonyma and synonyma only in reference to words and their meanings. That is to say, for him, homonyma and synonyma are properties of linguistic terms and not of things, whereas for Aristotle, especially in the first chapter of the Categories, they are properties of things.\r\n\r\nIn 1904, E. Hambruch attempted to show that sometimes Aristotle himself uses synonyma in the Speusippean sense just outlined and that in so doing, he was influenced by Speusippus. This thesis of Hambruch has been accepted by several scholars, including Lang, Stenzel, and Cherniss. Although some doubts about its soundness were expressed from different perspectives, it was only in 1971 that Mr. Jonathan Barnes made a systematic assault on it. Barnes contends, first, that Speusippus\u2019s conception of homonyma and synonyma is essentially the same as that of Aristotle, with the slight differences between their respective definitions being trivial, and second, that even though Aristotle occasionally uses homonyma and synonyma as properties of linguistic terms, this is because Aristotle's use of these words is not as rigid as the Categories might suggest. Barnes argues that Aristotle could not have been influenced by Speusippus, because Speusippus conceived homonymy and synonymy as properties of things, and, in any case, if influence were assumed, it could as well have been Aristotle influencing Speusippus.\r\n\r\nThough I believe Barnes\u2019 two main contentions are mistaken, I am here mainly concerned with the first part of his thesis. If he were right in believing that, for Speusippus, homonyma and synonyma are properties of things and not of names or linguistic terms, then Hambruch\u2019s notion that Speusippus influenced Aristotle when the latter uses synonymon as a property of names would be wrong, even if Barnes were mistaken in his analysis of the Aristotelian passages he reviews in the second part of his paper.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, if Speusippus's classification is truly of onomata, then, since Barnes himself admits that Aristotle sometimes uses homonyma and synonyma as properties of names, the influence of Speusippus on Aristotle is at least possible. It becomes plausible and probable\u2014regardless of the relative chronology of their respective works\u2014when it is seen, as I shall try to show, that in some cases, Aristotle is in fact attacking doctrines that presuppose a use of homonyma and synonyma such as can be ascribed to Speusippus or is using synonymon in the Speusippean sense, different from Aristotle's own notion of synonymous words. [introduction p. 73-75]","btype":3,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DXL3umbA2JfHxYC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":843,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"106","issue":"1","pages":"73-99"}},"sort":[1978]}

529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?, 1978
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title 529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1978
Journal Byzantion
Volume 48
Issue 2
Pages 369–385
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In an excellent and already well-known article, Professor Alan Cameron has made a strong case for the thesis that, notwithstanding the evidence of Malalas and a long-established tradition, Justinian did not succeed in finally closing the Platonic Academy in 529, and that its activities continued after a short interruption. The purpose of this paper is, firstly, to argue that some of the evidence usually adduced in favor of the view that the Academy was closed may not be applicable, but that it seems nevertheless to have succumbed to some form of imperial pressure, and, secondly, to question the view that philosophy continued to be taught, or even studied, at Athens from 532 until the Slavs sacked the city nearly fifty years later. The most important piece of evidence for the continued existence of the Academy is a passage from Olympiodorus' commentary on Plato's 1st Alcibiades which says, "Perhaps Plato made a practice of taking no fees because he was well-off. That is why the diadochika have lasted till now, in spite of many confiscations." Diadochika is left untranslated since its meaning is by no means certain. It could refer to the salary of the Head of the Academy. It could also, however, be a term for the Academy's endowments in general. A third meaning, suggested by J. Whittaker, is spiritual rather than material heritage, but despite arguments, it is unlikely that the word in its context does not refer to some form of funding. To this point, we must return shortly. Cameron argues convincingly that this passage was written somewhere around 560, on the grounds that it refers to an incident in the career of a grammaticus called Anatolius, dateable to the late 540s, as one that his readers can no longer be expected to remember. He infers from this that the Academy was still operating at that time and, moreover, in possession of substantial funds some thirty years after its alleged closure and expropriation. At about the same time, Whittaker, apparently writing before the appearance of Cameron's paper and arguing against Westerink, questioned whether the text adduced provided evidence either for confiscations at the time when Olympiodorus was writing or for the continued availability of material resources. Olympiodorus' report certainly raises some serious problems. The first relates to the confiscations. Cameron has discussed a number of possible occasions between 529 and the date of the composition of Olympiodorus' commentary about 560. If Academy funds were being confiscated during that period, then clearly there must have been a conspicuous Academy to be subject to the confiscations. But, as Whittaker has pointed out, the reference of the present participle stating that there were confiscations could be to any time during the reference of the main verb, that is, to the whole period between Plato and the time of writing. One possible inference is that the funds had been subjected to confiscations even before 529 but still survived in the hands of the scholarchs after that date. Justinian's edict is quite likely not to have been new but, like much of his legislation, a re-enactment of former decrees—some of which were in any case disregarded. Nevertheless, it is difficult to find a suitable earlier occasion, or occasions, to be the time of the confiscations in question. A second, and more basic, problem attaches to the funds themselves. There is no other evidence, except a report in the Suda article on Plato, and a parallel text in Photius, which attributes any of the late Academy's resources, or those of its office-holders, to inheritance from Plato. This Suda article, which is based on Damascius' Life of Isidore, tells us that only the Academy garden had been Plato's—he was not well-off—and that there were large accretions of funds in the fifth century. We know that most of the major buildings in Athens were destroyed by the Heruls in 267. Damascius, moreover, in the extract provided by Photius, made a point of denying what he says was a commonly held view that the resources of the Academy went back to Plato himself: τῶν δὲ διαδόχων οὐσία οὐκ ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ νομίζουσι Πλάτωνος ἦν τὸ ἀνέκαθεν. This summary too continues with the points that Plato was not rich, that only the garden was his, and that there were large additions through bequests later. From this text, we may infer that Olympiodorus' diadochika must have been school resources under the control of the school's head: Damascius is talking about sums of money, and the garden could hardly have been part of the scholarch's salary. If, then, such funds as were available to the Academy in the 5th and 6th centuries were not the product of Plato's own endowments, Olympiodorus—or his source—has wrongly inferred from the Academy's current, or recent, wealth, and Plato's aristocratic background and refusal to take fees, that Plato himself was responsible for the endowments. Damascius' disclaimer shows that he was not the first to do so. And if Olympiodorus was wrong about that, then he might also, though less obviously, have been wrong in saying that the funds existed in his own day. His information could have been some thirty years out of date, a period for the survival of obsolete information by no means inconceivable even with modern methods of disseminating information. We need look no further than the reputations of university departments in our own times. If the close relation between Athenian and Alexandrian philosophers that had obtained in the fifth century were by now a thing of the past—whether because of odium academicum, as manifested in the bitter attacks launched by Philoponus on the views of Proclus in a previous generation, and Simplicius in his own, the latter being furiously reciprocated—or because nothing was any longer happening at Athens, or for some other reason, that would be sufficient to explain such an error. To return to the question of a re-endowment in the 5th century. There are a number of indications that this happened. In the first place, negatively, there is little if any evidence that the Academy, or any but insignificant Platonists, were active at Athens in the preceding period. Positively, we have a report from Synesius that he went to Athens and found nothing going on at all: "It is like a sacrificial victim at the end of the proceedings, with only the skin left as a token of the animal that once was. So philosophy has moved its home, and all that is left for a visitor is to wander around looking at the Academy, the Lyceum, and, yes, the Stoa Poikile..." [introduction p. 369-372]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"876","_score":null,"_source":{"id":876,"authors_free":[{"id":1287,"entry_id":876,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?","main_title":{"title":"529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?"},"abstract":"In an excellent and already well-known article, Professor Alan Cameron has made a strong case for the thesis that, notwithstanding the evidence of Malalas and a long-established tradition, Justinian did not succeed in finally closing the Platonic Academy in 529, and that its activities continued after a short interruption. The purpose of this paper is, firstly, to argue that some of the evidence usually adduced in favor of the view that the Academy was closed may not be applicable, but that it seems nevertheless to have succumbed to some form of imperial pressure, and, secondly, to question the view that philosophy continued to be taught, or even studied, at Athens from 532 until the Slavs sacked the city nearly fifty years later.\r\n\r\nThe most important piece of evidence for the continued existence of the Academy is a passage from Olympiodorus' commentary on Plato's 1st Alcibiades which says, \"Perhaps Plato made a practice of taking no fees because he was well-off. That is why the diadochika have lasted till now, in spite of many confiscations.\" Diadochika is left untranslated since its meaning is by no means certain. It could refer to the salary of the Head of the Academy. It could also, however, be a term for the Academy's endowments in general. A third meaning, suggested by J. Whittaker, is spiritual rather than material heritage, but despite arguments, it is unlikely that the word in its context does not refer to some form of funding. To this point, we must return shortly.\r\n\r\nCameron argues convincingly that this passage was written somewhere around 560, on the grounds that it refers to an incident in the career of a grammaticus called Anatolius, dateable to the late 540s, as one that his readers can no longer be expected to remember. He infers from this that the Academy was still operating at that time and, moreover, in possession of substantial funds some thirty years after its alleged closure and expropriation. At about the same time, Whittaker, apparently writing before the appearance of Cameron's paper and arguing against Westerink, questioned whether the text adduced provided evidence either for confiscations at the time when Olympiodorus was writing or for the continued availability of material resources.\r\n\r\nOlympiodorus' report certainly raises some serious problems. The first relates to the confiscations. Cameron has discussed a number of possible occasions between 529 and the date of the composition of Olympiodorus' commentary about 560. If Academy funds were being confiscated during that period, then clearly there must have been a conspicuous Academy to be subject to the confiscations. But, as Whittaker has pointed out, the reference of the present participle stating that there were confiscations could be to any time during the reference of the main verb, that is, to the whole period between Plato and the time of writing. One possible inference is that the funds had been subjected to confiscations even before 529 but still survived in the hands of the scholarchs after that date. Justinian's edict is quite likely not to have been new but, like much of his legislation, a re-enactment of former decrees\u2014some of which were in any case disregarded. Nevertheless, it is difficult to find a suitable earlier occasion, or occasions, to be the time of the confiscations in question.\r\n\r\nA second, and more basic, problem attaches to the funds themselves. There is no other evidence, except a report in the Suda article on Plato, and a parallel text in Photius, which attributes any of the late Academy's resources, or those of its office-holders, to inheritance from Plato. This Suda article, which is based on Damascius' Life of Isidore, tells us that only the Academy garden had been Plato's\u2014he was not well-off\u2014and that there were large accretions of funds in the fifth century. We know that most of the major buildings in Athens were destroyed by the Heruls in 267. Damascius, moreover, in the extract provided by Photius, made a point of denying what he says was a commonly held view that the resources of the Academy went back to Plato himself: \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd. This summary too continues with the points that Plato was not rich, that only the garden was his, and that there were large additions through bequests later. From this text, we may infer that Olympiodorus' diadochika must have been school resources under the control of the school's head: Damascius is talking about sums of money, and the garden could hardly have been part of the scholarch's salary.\r\n\r\nIf, then, such funds as were available to the Academy in the 5th and 6th centuries were not the product of Plato's own endowments, Olympiodorus\u2014or his source\u2014has wrongly inferred from the Academy's current, or recent, wealth, and Plato's aristocratic background and refusal to take fees, that Plato himself was responsible for the endowments. Damascius' disclaimer shows that he was not the first to do so. And if Olympiodorus was wrong about that, then he might also, though less obviously, have been wrong in saying that the funds existed in his own day. His information could have been some thirty years out of date, a period for the survival of obsolete information by no means inconceivable even with modern methods of disseminating information. We need look no further than the reputations of university departments in our own times. If the close relation between Athenian and Alexandrian philosophers that had obtained in the fifth century were by now a thing of the past\u2014whether because of odium academicum, as manifested in the bitter attacks launched by Philoponus on the views of Proclus in a previous generation, and Simplicius in his own, the latter being furiously reciprocated\u2014or because nothing was any longer happening at Athens, or for some other reason, that would be sufficient to explain such an error.\r\n\r\nTo return to the question of a re-endowment in the 5th century. There are a number of indications that this happened. In the first place, negatively, there is little if any evidence that the Academy, or any but insignificant Platonists, were active at Athens in the preceding period. Positively, we have a report from Synesius that he went to Athens and found nothing going on at all:\r\n\r\n\"It is like a sacrificial victim at the end of the proceedings, with only the skin left as a token of the animal that once was. So philosophy has moved its home, and all that is left for a visitor is to wander around looking at the Academy, the Lyceum, and, yes, the Stoa Poikile...\" [introduction p. 369-372]","btype":3,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8waAtP8ixbo8cmC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":876,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Byzantion","volume":"48","issue":"2","pages":"369\u2013385"}},"sort":[1978]}

Le Problème du Néoplatonisme Alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius., 1978
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut
Title Le Problème du Néoplatonisme Alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius.
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1978
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Études Augustiniennes
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Review by Victor Goldschmidt: "La modestie de son titre ne révèle qu'imparfaitement l'objet et la portée de ce livre. Il s'agit en réalité de réformer l'idée traditionnelle qu'on se faisait de deux courants de la pensée antique. C'est entre le début du ve siècle de notre ère, en effet, jusqu'au début du viie que s'étend l'espace temporel où K. Praechter, suivi par tous les savants venus après lui, avait situé ce qu'il appelait « L'École alexandrine ». Ce mouvement se distinguerait fondamentalement de l'École d'Athènes, par son abandon partiel des constructions métaphysiques de Proclus et de ses élèves, par un retour au « moyen platonisme », par ses rapports de bon voisinage avec les milieux chrétiens, et représenterait « un lieu de culture philosophiquement neutre, sans credo platonico-païen », et plaçant l'étude d'Aristote au-dessus de celle de Platon. Les traits de cette École se verraient avec une particulière netteté dans le commentaire d'Hiéroclès sur les Vers Dorés attribués à Pythagore, et dans le commentaire que Simplicius, avant d'être entré en rapport avec l'École d'Athènes, a consacré au Manuel d'Épictète. Or c'est précisément en préparant une édition commentée du commentaire de Simplicius (à paraître dans la Collection G. Budé), que l'A. a rencontré « le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin » ; la thèse traditionnelle lui a semblé alors insoutenable, pour des raisons tant historiques que de doctrine. En bref, comme le dit l'auteur dans une formule remarquable, ce que l'on a pris pour un « néoplatonisme plus simple » est en réalité un « néoplatonisme simplifié », et même « fragmenté », et cela uniquement pour les besoins de l'enseignement. Il est montré, en effet, d'une façon convaincante, que les deux Commentaires, d'Hiéroclès et de Simplicius, relèvent de ce que nous appellerions une propédeutique, c'est-à-dire qu'ils s'adressent à des débutants qu'il s'agit d'initier dans la « première » partie de la philosophie, réputée la plus accessible, en l'espèce l'éthique. On sait que ce problème pédagogique s'est posé dès le début dans l'École stoïcienne et qu'il a été longuement discuté par les commentateurs d'Aristote, qui donnent toutefois, généralement, la première place à la logique. Le VIIe chapitre apporte une contribution importante à l'histoire de ce problème. D'où l'on voit déjà que c'est en apparence seulement que le résultat de l'ouvrage est négatif. Sans doute s'agit-il surtout de réfuter la thèse de K. Praechter, renouvelée par A. Cameron et Ph. Merlan ; la Conclusion se termine sur cette affirmation qu'« il n'y a pas d'école néoplatonicienne d'Alexandrie dont les tendances doctrinales différeraient des tendances propres à l'école d'Athènes ». De fait, le livre contient une interprétation développée des fragments d'Hiéroclès conservés par Photius et, surtout, de son Commentaire sur les Vers Dorés, montrant l'accord de ces textes avec le néoplatonisme « athénien ». Ces exégèses sont conduites avec fermeté, appuyées sur une vaste information, et emportent la conviction, quoi qu'il en soit de tel ou tel point de détail. Quelques questions, d'ordre plus général, pourraient être pesées. — P. 37 : il est certain que le thème du « philosophe dans l'État corrompu » est un lieu commun et que le τειχίον, dans le texte de Simplicius est clairement une réminiscence de la République (VI, 496 c-d). Est-ce suffisant pour infirmer la thèse d'A. Cameron, qui voit dans ce texte une allusion à la place faite aux philosophes néoplatoniciens après l'édit de Justinien ? De telles citations, l'auteur en convient lui-même deux pages plus loin, n'excluent nullement un « intérêt personnel » et, plus généralement, la négation de principe de « remarques autobiographiques chez les auteurs antiques » (p. 39) est exagérée et même inexacte. — P. 128 : l'exposé de Chalcidius sur le Destin, qui est un texte canonique et qui au surplus avait servi à K. Praechter à caractériser le « moyen platonisme », méritait mieux qu'un bref résumé : il était bon de rappeler qu'il s'agit, à la suite d'ailleurs de Chrysippe, du commentaire d'un texte du Xe Livre de la République ; on ne peut pas, en l'espèce, parler de « l'implication mutuelle de la providence et de VHeimarménè », et la note 40 simplifie le problème de la liberté stoïcienne, qu'on n'était pas sans doute obligé de traiter, mais auquel il fallait laisser sa complexité de problème, précisément ; l'on ne saurait écrire, en tout état de cause, que « pour les choses qui sont faites par fatalité, leur contraire aurait pu aussi bien se faire », thèse qui ne semble avoir été soutenue que par le seul Cléanthe. — Le chapitre VII répond à la question, naguère posée par R. Walzer : « Comment peut-on expliquer le fait que Simplicius, en tant que platonicien, commente les maximes éthiques d'un stoïcien ? ». La réponse combine essentiellement deux considérations : l'apathie du sage stoïcien est déjà admise dans le traité de Plotin Sur les Vertus (I, ii) et le caractère sententieux du Manuel qui convient bien à des débutants. Sans doute, du point de vue historique, est-ce là tout ce qu'on peut alléguer. De fait, l'éthique plotinienne ne se résume pas à l'idéal d'apathie et le genre gnomologique qu'on peut faire remonter aux Sept Sages avait trouvé bien d'autres illustrations, ne serait-ce que, comme l'auteur le rappelle avec raison, chez les Pythagoriciens. On se demandera plutôt si, de la part de Simplicius, le choix du Manuel ne s'explique pas plus simplement par l'attrait extraordinaire que ce petit livre a exercé de tout temps sur les lecteurs, et cela en dehors de toute appartenance à telle ou telle secte. Une dernière question, enfin. On doit considérer que Mme Hadot a établi son propos, et que l'on ne parlera plus d'une « école alexandrine », opposée à celle d'Athènes et différenciée de celle-ci selon les traits que Praechter avait cru pouvoir constater. Il reste qu'il y a eu, dans la période en question, des néoplatoniciens vivant et enseignant à Alexandrie. Même en admettant leur « orthodoxie » foncière, ces hommes (sans parler d'Hypatie qui a subi pour la philosophie un martyre qui lui eût été épargné à Athènes) ne présentent-ils pas quelques caractères communs : rien que leur environnement culturel le ferait conjecturer. Mais ce serait là l'objet d'une autre recherche, complémentaire de celle-ci. En attendant, on saura gré à l'auteur de cet ouvrage doublement précieux : par ses résultats intrinsèques, et en tant qu'introduction à son édition à paraître d'un texte jusqu'à présent fort peu étudié."

{"_index":"sire","_id":"180","_score":null,"_source":{"id":180,"authors_free":[{"id":236,"entry_id":180,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le Probl\u00e8me du N\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius.","main_title":{"title":"Le Probl\u00e8me du N\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius."},"abstract":"Review by Victor Goldschmidt: \"La modestie de son titre ne r\u00e9v\u00e8le qu'imparfaitement l'objet et la port\u00e9e de ce livre. Il s'agit en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de r\u00e9former l'id\u00e9e traditionnelle qu'on se faisait de deux courants de la pens\u00e9e antique. C'est entre le d\u00e9but du ve si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, en effet, jusqu'au d\u00e9but du viie que s'\u00e9tend l'espace temporel o\u00f9 K. Praechter, suivi par tous les savants venus apr\u00e8s lui, avait situ\u00e9 ce qu'il appelait \u00ab L'\u00c9cole alexandrine \u00bb. Ce mouvement se distinguerait fondamentalement de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes, par son abandon partiel des constructions m\u00e9taphysiques de Proclus et de ses \u00e9l\u00e8ves, par un retour au \u00ab moyen platonisme \u00bb, par ses rapports de bon voisinage avec les milieux chr\u00e9tiens, et repr\u00e9senterait \u00ab un lieu de culture philosophiquement neutre, sans credo platonico-pa\u00efen \u00bb, et pla\u00e7ant l'\u00e9tude d'Aristote au-dessus de celle de Platon. Les traits de cette \u00c9cole se verraient avec une particuli\u00e8re nettet\u00e9 dans le commentaire d'Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s sur les Vers Dor\u00e9s attribu\u00e9s \u00e0 Pythagore, et dans le commentaire que Simplicius, avant d'\u00eatre entr\u00e9 en rapport avec l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes, a consacr\u00e9 au Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Or c'est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment en pr\u00e9parant une \u00e9dition comment\u00e9e du commentaire de Simplicius (\u00e0 para\u00eetre dans la Collection G. Bud\u00e9), que l'A. a rencontr\u00e9 \u00ab le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin \u00bb ; la th\u00e8se traditionnelle lui a sembl\u00e9 alors insoutenable, pour des raisons tant historiques que de doctrine.\r\nEn bref, comme le dit l'auteur dans une formule remarquable, ce que l'on a pris pour un \u00ab n\u00e9oplatonisme plus simple \u00bb est en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 un \u00ab n\u00e9oplatonisme simplifi\u00e9 \u00bb, et m\u00eame \u00ab fragment\u00e9 \u00bb, et cela uniquement pour les besoins de l'enseignement. Il est montr\u00e9, en effet, d'une fa\u00e7on convaincante, que les deux Commentaires, d'Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et de Simplicius, rel\u00e8vent de ce que nous appellerions une prop\u00e9deutique, c'est-\u00e0-dire qu'ils s'adressent \u00e0 des d\u00e9butants qu'il s'agit d'initier dans la \u00ab premi\u00e8re \u00bb partie de la philosophie, r\u00e9put\u00e9e la plus accessible, en l'esp\u00e8ce l'\u00e9thique. On sait que ce probl\u00e8me p\u00e9dagogique s'est pos\u00e9 d\u00e8s le d\u00e9but dans l'\u00c9cole sto\u00efcienne et qu'il a \u00e9t\u00e9 longuement discut\u00e9 par les commentateurs d'Aristote, qui donnent toutefois, g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, la premi\u00e8re place \u00e0 la logique. Le VIIe chapitre apporte une contribution importante \u00e0 l'histoire de ce probl\u00e8me.\r\nD'o\u00f9 l'on voit d\u00e9j\u00e0 que c'est en apparence seulement que le r\u00e9sultat de l'ouvrage est n\u00e9gatif. Sans doute s'agit-il surtout de r\u00e9futer la th\u00e8se de K. Praechter, renouvel\u00e9e par A. Cameron et Ph. Merlan ; la Conclusion se termine sur cette affirmation qu'\u00ab il n'y a pas d'\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'Alexandrie dont les tendances doctrinales diff\u00e9reraient des tendances propres \u00e0 l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes \u00bb. De fait, le livre contient une interpr\u00e9tation d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e des fragments d'Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s conserv\u00e9s par Photius et, surtout, de son Commentaire sur les Vers Dor\u00e9s, montrant l'accord de ces textes avec le n\u00e9oplatonisme \u00ab ath\u00e9nien \u00bb. Ces ex\u00e9g\u00e8ses sont conduites avec fermet\u00e9, appuy\u00e9es sur une vaste information, et emportent la conviction, quoi qu'il en soit de tel ou tel point de d\u00e9tail. Quelques questions, d'ordre plus g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, pourraient \u00eatre pes\u00e9es. \u2014 P. 37 : il est certain que le th\u00e8me du \u00ab philosophe dans l'\u00c9tat corrompu \u00bb est un lieu commun et que le \u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, dans le texte de Simplicius est clairement une r\u00e9miniscence de la R\u00e9publique (VI, 496 c-d). Est-ce suffisant pour infirmer la th\u00e8se d'A. Cameron, qui voit dans ce texte une allusion \u00e0 la place faite aux philosophes n\u00e9oplatoniciens apr\u00e8s l'\u00e9dit de Justinien ? De telles citations, l'auteur en convient lui-m\u00eame deux pages plus loin, n'excluent nullement un \u00ab int\u00e9r\u00eat personnel \u00bb et, plus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, la n\u00e9gation de principe de \u00ab remarques autobiographiques chez les auteurs antiques \u00bb (p. 39) est exag\u00e9r\u00e9e et m\u00eame inexacte. \u2014 P. 128 : l'expos\u00e9 de Chalcidius sur le Destin, qui est un texte canonique et qui au surplus avait servi \u00e0 K. Praechter \u00e0 caract\u00e9riser le \u00ab moyen platonisme \u00bb, m\u00e9ritait mieux qu'un bref r\u00e9sum\u00e9 : il \u00e9tait bon de rappeler qu'il s'agit, \u00e0 la suite d'ailleurs de Chrysippe, du commentaire d'un texte du Xe Livre de la R\u00e9publique ; on ne peut pas, en l'esp\u00e8ce, parler de \u00ab l'implication mutuelle de la providence et de VHeimarm\u00e9n\u00e8 \u00bb, et la note 40 simplifie le probl\u00e8me de la libert\u00e9 sto\u00efcienne, qu'on n'\u00e9tait pas sans doute oblig\u00e9 de traiter, mais auquel il fallait laisser sa complexit\u00e9 de probl\u00e8me, pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment ; l'on ne saurait \u00e9crire, en tout \u00e9tat de cause, que \u00ab pour les choses qui sont faites par fatalit\u00e9, leur contraire aurait pu aussi bien se faire \u00bb, th\u00e8se qui ne semble avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 soutenue que par le seul Cl\u00e9anthe. \u2014 Le chapitre VII r\u00e9pond \u00e0 la question, nagu\u00e8re pos\u00e9e par R. Walzer : \u00ab Comment peut-on expliquer le fait que Simplicius, en tant que platonicien, commente les maximes \u00e9thiques d'un sto\u00efcien ? \u00bb. La r\u00e9ponse combine essentiellement deux consid\u00e9rations : l'apathie du sage sto\u00efcien est d\u00e9j\u00e0 admise dans le trait\u00e9 de Plotin Sur les Vertus (I, ii) et le caract\u00e8re sententieux du Manuel qui convient bien \u00e0 des d\u00e9butants. Sans doute, du point de vue historique, est-ce l\u00e0 tout ce qu'on peut all\u00e9guer. De fait, l'\u00e9thique plotinienne ne se r\u00e9sume pas \u00e0 l'id\u00e9al d'apathie et le genre gnomologique qu'on peut faire remonter aux Sept Sages avait trouv\u00e9 bien d'autres illustrations, ne serait-ce que, comme l'auteur le rappelle avec raison, chez les Pythagoriciens. On se demandera plut\u00f4t si, de la part de Simplicius, le choix du Manuel ne s'explique pas plus simplement par l'attrait extraordinaire que ce petit livre a exerc\u00e9 de tout temps sur les lecteurs, et cela en dehors de toute appartenance \u00e0 telle ou telle secte.\r\nUne derni\u00e8re question, enfin. On doit consid\u00e9rer que Mme Hadot a \u00e9tabli son propos, et que l'on ne parlera plus d'une \u00ab \u00e9cole alexandrine \u00bb, oppos\u00e9e \u00e0 celle d'Ath\u00e8nes et diff\u00e9renci\u00e9e de celle-ci selon les traits que Praechter avait cru pouvoir constater. Il reste qu'il y a eu, dans la p\u00e9riode en question, des n\u00e9oplatoniciens vivant et enseignant \u00e0 Alexandrie. M\u00eame en admettant leur \u00ab orthodoxie \u00bb fonci\u00e8re, ces hommes (sans parler d'Hypatie qui a subi pour la philosophie un martyre qui lui e\u00fbt \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9pargn\u00e9 \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes) ne pr\u00e9sentent-ils pas quelques caract\u00e8res communs : rien que leur environnement culturel le ferait conjecturer. Mais ce serait l\u00e0 l'objet d'une autre recherche, compl\u00e9mentaire de celle-ci.\r\nEn attendant, on saura gr\u00e9 \u00e0 l'auteur de cet ouvrage doublement pr\u00e9cieux : par ses r\u00e9sultats intrins\u00e8ques, et en tant qu'introduction \u00e0 son \u00e9dition \u00e0 para\u00eetre d'un texte jusqu'\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent fort peu \u00e9tudi\u00e9.\"","btype":1,"date":"1978","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wkXALs20MmtJp9g","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":180,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"\u00c9tudes Augustiniennes","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1978]}

The Changing Self: A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus, 1978
By: Steel, Carlos
Title The Changing Self: A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1978
Publication Place Brüssel
Publisher Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten
Categories no categories
Author(s) Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The later Neoplatonist writers are not easy to read or sympathize with for several reasons. To begin with, it is necessary to reconstruct their views not with the help of their own writings, but with extracts and summaries in later writers. This is particularly true of Iamblichus. Only fragments of his treatise De Anima may be found in Stobaeus (Ecl. 1, 362, 23–367, 9), and to this somewhat exiguous number may be added what is reported in various places by Proclus, Damascius, and Priscianus, fifth- and sixth-century writers living two centuries after the death of Iamblichus in 326. This makes any attempt at reconstruction particularly uncertain. Iamblichus' views, insofar as we can reconstruct them, are primarily interesting because they represent the first and in many ways most serious challenge to the doctrines of Plotinus. And the challenge itself may be said to have split the later Neoplatonists, with Damascius and Priscianus following Iamblichus and Proclus reverting to the views of Plotinus. The real question at issue, and one dealt with with admirable fairness and clarity by Steel, is the nature of the soul and, more particularly, "Does it fall or not?" Plotinus maintained on many occasions that it remained, at least in its upper and true self, unfallen. This is clear, for example, at Enn. IV.1.12. Iamblichus' critique of this view is instructive and sympathetic. The view of Plotinus fails to explain far too many factors in our moral and empirical lives—the fact of sin, our awareness of unhappiness, and the apparent betrayal of the vision of the soul offered by Plato in the Phaedrus 248a ff. Not that Plotinus was unaware of these drawbacks to his theory. He had anticipated and dealt with some already at Enn. I.1 and III.6. Iamblichus also objected to the Plotinian doctrine that all souls were homogeneous (cf. Enn. IV.7.10.19). To obviate these difficulties, Iamblichus developed a theory about the substantial change of the soul (cf. p. 53 ff.). The evidence for this view comes largely from Priscianus, so it is perhaps unwise to be too uncritical about accepting it as Iamblichus' own, especially when considering the reverence in which he was held by many later writers, who, beginning at least as early as Julian, called him "the divine." The arguments produced in favor of such a view of the mutable substance of the soul all seem to argue from perceived activities to the unperceived cause—a methodological principle that derives from Aristotle and seems to run counter to the method employed by Plotinus. The system of Plotinus, like that of the great systematizer Proclus, is deductive rather than inductive. The central vision around which the Iamblichean picture revolves is of a soul that remains in itself and simultaneously proceeds from itself—a view that is often repeated in Priscianus. Whereas in Plotinus the upper, true soul never sallies forth and only the image of the soul does, here it is the whole soul. This reduced cosmic status of the soul may be the reason why Iamblichus was willing to allow people to approach the divine through theurgy and not simply through the activity of the soul. Two points may be mentioned. One is the relation of Iamblichus to Proclus. It has often been assumed that the former had a great influence on the latter, and this is the view put forward by Professor Dodds in his edition of the Elements of Proclus (cf. Introd., xvi ff.). Just how much influence was there? Again, on p. 157, it is stated that much later pagan psychology was occasioned by the desire to refute either the views or objections of Christians, or both. But there is a considerable question as to the knowledge of and interest in what Christians believed and wrote on the part of educated pagans. It really is an open question whether there is any reference at all to anything Christian in Iamblichus or Plotinus. It would be most interesting if any serious evidence could be found in favor of such a hypothesis. [review by Anthony Meredith p. 290-291 ]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1445","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1445,"authors_free":[{"id":2314,"entry_id":1445,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Changing Self: A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus","main_title":{"title":"The Changing Self: A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus"},"abstract":"The later Neoplatonist writers are not easy to read or sympathize with for several reasons. To begin with, it is necessary to reconstruct their views not with the help of their own writings, but with extracts and summaries in later writers. This is particularly true of Iamblichus. Only fragments of his treatise De Anima may be found in Stobaeus (Ecl. 1, 362, 23\u2013367, 9), and to this somewhat exiguous number may be added what is reported in various places by Proclus, Damascius, and Priscianus, fifth- and sixth-century writers living two centuries after the death of Iamblichus in 326. This makes any attempt at reconstruction particularly uncertain.\r\n\r\nIamblichus' views, insofar as we can reconstruct them, are primarily interesting because they represent the first and in many ways most serious challenge to the doctrines of Plotinus. And the challenge itself may be said to have split the later Neoplatonists, with Damascius and Priscianus following Iamblichus and Proclus reverting to the views of Plotinus.\r\n\r\nThe real question at issue, and one dealt with with admirable fairness and clarity by Steel, is the nature of the soul and, more particularly, \"Does it fall or not?\" Plotinus maintained on many occasions that it remained, at least in its upper and true self, unfallen. This is clear, for example, at Enn. IV.1.12. Iamblichus' critique of this view is instructive and sympathetic. The view of Plotinus fails to explain far too many factors in our moral and empirical lives\u2014the fact of sin, our awareness of unhappiness, and the apparent betrayal of the vision of the soul offered by Plato in the Phaedrus 248a ff.\r\n\r\nNot that Plotinus was unaware of these drawbacks to his theory. He had anticipated and dealt with some already at Enn. I.1 and III.6. Iamblichus also objected to the Plotinian doctrine that all souls were homogeneous (cf. Enn. IV.7.10.19). To obviate these difficulties, Iamblichus developed a theory about the substantial change of the soul (cf. p. 53 ff.). The evidence for this view comes largely from Priscianus, so it is perhaps unwise to be too uncritical about accepting it as Iamblichus' own, especially when considering the reverence in which he was held by many later writers, who, beginning at least as early as Julian, called him \"the divine.\"\r\n\r\nThe arguments produced in favor of such a view of the mutable substance of the soul all seem to argue from perceived activities to the unperceived cause\u2014a methodological principle that derives from Aristotle and seems to run counter to the method employed by Plotinus. The system of Plotinus, like that of the great systematizer Proclus, is deductive rather than inductive.\r\n\r\nThe central vision around which the Iamblichean picture revolves is of a soul that remains in itself and simultaneously proceeds from itself\u2014a view that is often repeated in Priscianus. Whereas in Plotinus the upper, true soul never sallies forth and only the image of the soul does, here it is the whole soul. This reduced cosmic status of the soul may be the reason why Iamblichus was willing to allow people to approach the divine through theurgy and not simply through the activity of the soul.\r\n\r\nTwo points may be mentioned. One is the relation of Iamblichus to Proclus. It has often been assumed that the former had a great influence on the latter, and this is the view put forward by Professor Dodds in his edition of the Elements of Proclus (cf. Introd., xvi ff.). Just how much influence was there?\r\n\r\nAgain, on p. 157, it is stated that much later pagan psychology was occasioned by the desire to refute either the views or objections of Christians, or both. But there is a considerable question as to the knowledge of and interest in what Christians believed and wrote on the part of educated pagans. It really is an open question whether there is any reference at all to anything Christian in Iamblichus or Plotinus. It would be most interesting if any serious evidence could be found in favor of such a hypothesis. [review by Anthony Meredith p. 290-291 ]","btype":1,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tntYMFyZHiMovai","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1445,"pubplace":"Br\u00fcssel","publisher":"Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1978]}

Ficino's Lecture on the Good?, 1977
By: Allen, Michael J. B.
Title Ficino's Lecture on the Good?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1977
Journal Renaissance Quarterly
Volume 30
Issue 2
Pages 160-171
Categories no categories
Author(s) Allen, Michael J. B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This article discusses Plato's Lecture on the Good, the only lecture attributed to Plato by ancient sources. The lecture was attended by Aristotle and other students of Plato and was described as a blend of formal exposition, digressions, and asides. Although it was not a public success, the Lecture became famous in the ancient world for what the Neoplatonists presumed was its Pythagorean content. The Lecture played a role in the history of fifteenth-century Florentine Platonism under its chief architect, Marsilio Ficino, who was interested in reviving Neoplatonism and wedding it to Christianity while also dreaming of revitalizing the day-to-day life of the ancient Athenian Academy. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1261","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1261,"authors_free":[{"id":1847,"entry_id":1261,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":33,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Allen, Michael J. B.","free_first_name":"Michael J. B.","free_last_name":"Allen","norm_person":{"id":33,"first_name":"Michael J. B. ","last_name":"Allen","full_name":"Allen, Michael J. B. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12310405X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ficino's Lecture on the Good?","main_title":{"title":"Ficino's Lecture on the Good?"},"abstract":"This article discusses Plato's Lecture on the Good, the only lecture attributed to Plato by ancient sources. The lecture was attended by Aristotle and other students of Plato and was described as a blend of formal exposition, digressions, and asides. Although it was not a public success, the Lecture became famous in the ancient world for what the Neoplatonists presumed was its Pythagorean content. The Lecture played a role in the history of fifteenth-century Florentine Platonism under its chief architect, Marsilio Ficino, who was interested in reviving Neoplatonism and wedding it to Christianity while also dreaming of revitalizing the day-to-day life of the ancient Athenian Academy. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/P2WTHK3pKgeUa4u","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":33,"full_name":"Allen, Michael J. B. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1261,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Renaissance Quarterly ","volume":"30","issue":"2","pages":"160-171"}},"sort":[1977]}

Lucretius Contra Empedoclen: A Textual Note, 1977
By: Clay, Diskin
Title Lucretius Contra Empedoclen: A Textual Note
Type Article
Language English
Date 1977
Journal The Classical Journal
Volume 73
Issue 1
Pages 27-29
Categories no categories
Author(s) Clay, Diskin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In what must be the shortest textual note ever published, Bailey and Maas recovered the text of Lucretius I. 744: aera solem imbrem terras animalia fruges Imbrem scripsimus; ignem codd. This is their note. Why they wrote imbrem for ignem, they did not say, perhaps because any reader familiar with Lucretius' argument and Empedocles' poem On Nature knows why. Our manuscripts present us with a world composed of air, the sun, fire, the earth, and the products of the earth (aera solem ignem terras animalia fruges); Empedocles presents us with a world that is rooted in the four elements of air, earth, fire, and water. These he describes variously, but Lucretius has already powerfully invoked them at the very beginning of his poem, well before he returns to them in his refutation of Empedocles' theory of matter. Within the first nine lines of his proem, he evokes the stars (which are soon associated with fire, I. 231, 1034), the sea, the earth, the light of the sun, winds, the earth, the sea, and again light: in short, not the familiar Roman universe of three elements—the heaven, earth, and water—but the Greek world of air, earth, fire, and water. This world he returns to as he presents the elemental theories of "those who multiply the elements which generate the world," and who join air to fire and earth to water: I 714 et qui quattuor ex rebus posse omnia rentur ex igni terra atque anima procrescere et imbri. There are no textual problems here, although anima and imber are striking and unusual as descriptions of air and water. Nevertheless, they stand in the text. But the theory of four elements presents a problem when it is reduced by one in the manuscripts of Lucretius: aera, solem, ignem, terras. Christ saw the problem, and in 1853 he emended the text to give a world of four elements: he took the offending term to be solem, which he emended to rorem—creating a world of air, dew, fire, and earth. This emendation has the virtue of changing only two letters of the manuscripts to create water from the sun, and rorem is a perfectly good Lucretian word for water (cf. I. 771). Dew is a form of water, but Empedocles does not use it as a term to represent this elemental mass. ὕδωρ (hydor) is a word he used to represent water: Simplicius (commenting on Aristotle's Physics) noticed this—καλεῖ ὕδωρ ὄμβρον—and at least three passages from Empedocles survive to prove him right. Simplicius knew of Empedocles' various ways of naming his elements, but neither Lucretius' ancient nor modern editors seem to. Imber seemed strange for water, so an early editor or reader of Lucretius emended the text of I. 784-785 to read: "first these followers of Empedocles make fire transform itself into the gusts of air," I 784 hinc ignem gigni terramque creari ex igni retroque in terram cuncta reverti. Marullus understood what had gone wrong and emended ignem by imbrem and igni by imbri, making water out of fire and recovering how a Presocratic could imagine a ladder of elemental transformations moving down from air to precipitation to earth. Lucretius' attack on Empedocles' elemental theory is only one of the many signs of his knowledge of the Περὶ φύσεως (Peri Physeōs). De Rerum Natura I. 744 and 784-785 are not the only passages that reveal this, and these passages are not the only ones where Empedocles' Greek allows Lucretius' modern reader to recover his original text: II. 1114 ignem ignes procudent aetheraque (aether) This is restored by Empedocles (DK 31 B 37): (πυρὶ γὰρ αἰεὶ πῦρ ἐπὶ πυρὶ) αἰεὶ δὲ ξυνοίσει καὶ ἀὴρ ἀέρι Lachmann, with the confidence inspired by knowing too much and too little, emended aeraque (aer). Simplicius could have pointed him in the right direction when he gave one of Empedocles' terms for aether as aer, as could Empedocles himself. This has become a long note on one word in the manuscripts of Lucretius. Its justification is this: Bailey and Maas published their note in 1943. The emendation was incorporated into the text that accompanies Bailey's three-volume commentary on Lucretius (Oxford 1947), but unaccountably, it did not appear in the Oxford text reprinted in 1947 or in any later reprinting. In the tenth edition of his Lucrèce (Paris 1959), Ernout prints the text of our manuscripts; so does Josef Martin in the five editions of his Lucretius published since 1953. Büchner (Wiesbaden 1966) accepts Christ's rorem as "less drastic" (levior) than imbrem, and so, evidently, does Müller (Fribourg 1975). Only one of the major editions of Lucretius to appear since 1943, that of Martin Ferguson Smith (London and Cambridge, Mass. 1975), prints what Lucretius wrote: the rest prefer dew to rain. So weak is the force of ratio et res ipsa. [the entire text p. 27-29]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1272","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1272,"authors_free":[{"id":1862,"entry_id":1272,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":50,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Clay, Diskin","free_first_name":"Diskin","free_last_name":"Clay","norm_person":{"id":50,"first_name":"Diskin","last_name":"Clay","full_name":"Clay, Diskin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1069425435","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Lucretius Contra Empedoclen: A Textual Note","main_title":{"title":"Lucretius Contra Empedoclen: A Textual Note"},"abstract":"In what must be the shortest textual note ever published, Bailey and Maas recovered the text of Lucretius I. 744:\r\n\r\n aera solem imbrem terras animalia fruges\r\n Imbrem scripsimus; ignem codd.\r\n\r\nThis is their note. Why they wrote imbrem for ignem, they did not say, perhaps because any reader familiar with Lucretius' argument and Empedocles' poem On Nature knows why.\r\n\r\nOur manuscripts present us with a world composed of air, the sun, fire, the earth, and the products of the earth (aera solem ignem terras animalia fruges); Empedocles presents us with a world that is rooted in the four elements of air, earth, fire, and water. These he describes variously, but Lucretius has already powerfully invoked them at the very beginning of his poem, well before he returns to them in his refutation of Empedocles' theory of matter.\r\n\r\nWithin the first nine lines of his proem, he evokes the stars (which are soon associated with fire, I. 231, 1034), the sea, the earth, the light of the sun, winds, the earth, the sea, and again light: in short, not the familiar Roman universe of three elements\u2014the heaven, earth, and water\u2014but the Greek world of air, earth, fire, and water.\r\n\r\nThis world he returns to as he presents the elemental theories of \"those who multiply the elements which generate the world,\" and who join air to fire and earth to water:\r\n\r\n I 714 et qui quattuor ex rebus posse omnia rentur\r\n ex igni terra atque anima procrescere et imbri.\r\n\r\nThere are no textual problems here, although anima and imber are striking and unusual as descriptions of air and water. Nevertheless, they stand in the text. But the theory of four elements presents a problem when it is reduced by one in the manuscripts of Lucretius: aera, solem, ignem, terras.\r\n\r\nChrist saw the problem, and in 1853 he emended the text to give a world of four elements: he took the offending term to be solem, which he emended to rorem\u2014creating a world of air, dew, fire, and earth. This emendation has the virtue of changing only two letters of the manuscripts to create water from the sun, and rorem is a perfectly good Lucretian word for water (cf. I. 771).\r\n\r\nDew is a form of water, but Empedocles does not use it as a term to represent this elemental mass. \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 (hydor) is a word he used to represent water: Simplicius (commenting on Aristotle's Physics) noticed this\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f44\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u2014and at least three passages from Empedocles survive to prove him right.\r\n\r\nSimplicius knew of Empedocles' various ways of naming his elements, but neither Lucretius' ancient nor modern editors seem to. Imber seemed strange for water, so an early editor or reader of Lucretius emended the text of I. 784-785 to read:\r\n\r\n\"first these followers of Empedocles make fire transform itself into the gusts of air,\"\r\n\r\n I 784 hinc ignem gigni terramque creari\r\n ex igni retroque in terram cuncta reverti.\r\n\r\nMarullus understood what had gone wrong and emended ignem by imbrem and igni by imbri, making water out of fire and recovering how a Presocratic could imagine a ladder of elemental transformations moving down from air to precipitation to earth.\r\n\r\nLucretius' attack on Empedocles' elemental theory is only one of the many signs of his knowledge of the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 (Peri Physe\u014ds). De Rerum Natura I. 744 and 784-785 are not the only passages that reveal this, and these passages are not the only ones where Empedocles' Greek allows Lucretius' modern reader to recover his original text:\r\n\r\n II. 1114 ignem ignes procudent aetheraque (aether)\r\n\r\nThis is restored by Empedocles (DK 31 B 37):\r\n\r\n (\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f76) \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\r\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\r\n\r\nLachmann, with the confidence inspired by knowing too much and too little, emended aeraque (aer). Simplicius could have pointed him in the right direction when he gave one of Empedocles' terms for aether as aer, as could Empedocles himself.\r\n\r\nThis has become a long note on one word in the manuscripts of Lucretius. Its justification is this: Bailey and Maas published their note in 1943. The emendation was incorporated into the text that accompanies Bailey's three-volume commentary on Lucretius (Oxford 1947), but unaccountably, it did not appear in the Oxford text reprinted in 1947 or in any later reprinting.\r\n\r\nIn the tenth edition of his Lucr\u00e8ce (Paris 1959), Ernout prints the text of our manuscripts; so does Josef Martin in the five editions of his Lucretius published since 1953. B\u00fcchner (Wiesbaden 1966) accepts Christ's rorem as \"less drastic\" (levior) than imbrem, and so, evidently, does M\u00fcller (Fribourg 1975).\r\n\r\nOnly one of the major editions of Lucretius to appear since 1943, that of Martin Ferguson Smith (London and Cambridge, Mass. 1975), prints what Lucretius wrote: the rest prefer dew to rain.\r\n\r\nSo weak is the force of ratio et res ipsa. [the entire text p. 27-29]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/a3Cc8mgHkQFW4AL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":50,"full_name":"Clay, Diskin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1272,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Journal","volume":"73","issue":"1","pages":"27-29"}},"sort":[1977]}

Light from Aristotle's "Physics" on the Text of Parmenides B 8 D-K, 1977
By: Solmsen, Friedrich
Title Light from Aristotle's "Physics" on the Text of Parmenides B 8 D-K
Type Article
Language English
Date 1977
Journal Phronesis
Volume 22
Issue 1
Pages 10-12
Categories no categories
Author(s) Solmsen, Friedrich
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Aristotle's reputation as a historian of philosophy is far from good. We do not plead for a revision of the current estimate. The last sentence copied above suggests a causal relation of doctrines that is hard to square with the facts. On the whole, however, he has in this instance done better than usual; for he has, with genuine historical understanding, realized how the early Presocratics, whose search was for physical explanations, were stopped in their tracks when Parmenides issued his peremptory veto of genesis and phthora (how they worked themselves out of this deadlock is irrelevant). It would be futile to assign this refutation of genesis in both of its forms to any thinker other than Parmenides and no less futile to surmise that Aristotle here, for the sake of completeness or for reasons similar to those operative with Parmenides’ modern interpreters, credited him with an argument he did not use but would have been well advised to use. Throughout a large part of Physics I, Parmenides’ (and Melissus’) position presents the great obstacle to Aristotle's efforts at treating genesis as a reality. The monolithic, unchanging ὄν deprives physics of the principles (archai) without which it cannot build. Aristotle launches attack after attack against the fortress that had so long been considered impregnable. Having conquered it, he constructs his own theory of genesis. It is the "only solution" (monoeidês lysis, 191a23; see above), he declares triumphantly and proceeds to look once more at the objections raised by the Eleatics. In the remainder of chapter 8, he sets forth, on the basis of his own theory, why genesis from Being and from not-Being are perfectly valid concepts. There are more ways than one to show that they are legitimate. [p. 11-12]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1015","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1015,"authors_free":[{"id":1531,"entry_id":1015,"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":"Light from Aristotle's \"Physics\" on the Text of Parmenides B 8 D-K","main_title":{"title":"Light from Aristotle's \"Physics\" on the Text of Parmenides B 8 D-K"},"abstract":"Aristotle's reputation as a historian of philosophy is far from good. We do not plead for a revision of the current estimate. The last sentence copied above suggests a causal relation of doctrines that is hard to square with the facts. On the whole, however, he has in this instance done better than usual; for he has, with genuine historical understanding, realized how the early Presocratics, whose search was for physical explanations, were stopped in their tracks when Parmenides issued his peremptory veto of genesis and phthora (how they worked themselves out of this deadlock is irrelevant).\r\nIt would be futile to assign this refutation of genesis in both of its forms to any thinker other than Parmenides and no less futile to surmise that Aristotle here, for the sake of completeness or for reasons similar to those operative with Parmenides\u2019 modern interpreters, credited him with an argument he did not use but would have been well advised to use. Throughout a large part of Physics I, Parmenides\u2019 (and Melissus\u2019) position presents the great obstacle to Aristotle's efforts at treating genesis as a reality. The monolithic, unchanging \u1f44\u03bd deprives physics of the principles (archai) without which it cannot build. Aristotle launches attack after attack against the fortress that had so long been considered impregnable. Having conquered it, he constructs his own theory of genesis. It is the \"only solution\" (monoeid\u00eas lysis, 191a23; see above), he declares triumphantly and proceeds to look once more at the objections raised by the Eleatics.\r\nIn the remainder of chapter 8, he sets forth, on the basis of his own theory, why genesis from Being and from not-Being are perfectly valid concepts. There are more ways than one to show that they are legitimate. [p. 11-12]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/T9uT5aXwXA1HemE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":316,"full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1015,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"22","issue":"1","pages":"10-12"}},"sort":[1977]}

Place and Space in Late Neoplatonism, 1977
By: Sambûrsqî, Šemûʾēl
Title Place and Space in Late Neoplatonism
Type Article
Language English
Date 1977
Journal Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Volume 8
Issue 3
Pages 173–187
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sambûrsqî, Šemûʾēl
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Three basic notions characterize the physical world, namely space, time and matter, the first of which is usually held by scientists to be simpler than the other two. The history of physics and philosophy has shown, however, that even the concept of space abounds with difficulties, to which the doctrines of the later Neoplatonic philosophers form an impressive witness. It is proposed to give here a brief survey of the theories of topos, meaning variously “place” or “space”, from Iamblichus at the beginning of the fourth century to Simplicius in the middle of the sixth. Although most of their treatises were clad in the modest garb of commentaries on works by Plato or Aristotle, the ideas of these thinkers undoubtedly represent one of the peaks of sophistication and metaphysical acumen in the whole history of philosophy. The deliberations and inquiries of these philosophers on the concept of topos took place against a long historical background, spanning nearly a thousand years from the Presocratics to Plotinus. A short synopsis, however condensed, of the earlier developments of the concept will serve as a useful introduction, leading up to the period in which Iamblichus and his successors started to elaborate their ideas on topos. This summary will be concerned with merely the conceptual aspects of the subject and thus will not adhere to a strict chronological order. [introduction p. 173]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1051","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1051,"authors_free":[{"id":1596,"entry_id":1051,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":308,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","free_first_name":"\u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","free_last_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","norm_person":{"id":308,"first_name":"\u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","last_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee","full_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120109794","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Place and Space in Late Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Place and Space in Late Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"Three basic notions characterize the physical world, namely space, time and \r\nmatter, the first of which is usually held by scientists to be simpler than the \r\nother two. The history of physics and philosophy has shown, however, that \r\neven the concept of space abounds with difficulties, to which the doctrines of \r\nthe later Neoplatonic philosophers form an impressive witness. It is proposed \r\nto give here a brief survey of the theories of topos, meaning variously \u201cplace\u201d \r\nor \u201cspace\u201d, from Iamblichus at the beginning of the fourth century to \r\nSimplicius in the middle of the sixth. Although most of their treatises were \r\nclad in the modest garb of commentaries on works by Plato or Aristotle, the \r\nideas of these thinkers undoubtedly represent one of the peaks of sophistication \r\nand metaphysical acumen in the whole history of philosophy. The deliberations and inquiries of these philosophers on the concept of \r\ntopos took place against a long historical background, spanning nearly a \r\nthousand years from the Presocratics to Plotinus. A short synopsis, however \r\ncondensed, of the earlier developments of the concept will serve as a useful \r\nintroduction, leading up to the period in which Iamblichus and his successors \r\nstarted to elaborate their ideas on topos. This summary will be concerned with \r\nmerely the conceptual aspects of the subject and thus will not adhere to a \r\nstrict chronological order. [introduction p. 173]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FmKjWoNccS499uH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":308,"full_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1051,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"8","issue":"3","pages":"173\u2013187"}},"sort":[1977]}

Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on "Phantasia", 1977
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on "Phantasia"
Type Article
Language English
Date 1977
Journal The Review of Metaphysics
Volume 31
Issue 2
Pages 242-257
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The ancient commentaries on Aristotle have for the most part remained in that strange kind of no-man's land between Classical and Medieval studies that even now holds so many of the productions of later antiquity. On the whole it would be true to say that students of Neoplatonism?for the commentators were usually Neoplatonists ?prefer to occupy themselves with openly Neoplatonic writings. Modern Aristotelian scholars, on the other hand, tend to take very little account of the opinions of their ancient predecessors. In this way they differ from the Medie vals, both Christian and Moslem: as is well known, Aquinas instigated the translation of many of these commentaries by his fellow Dominican, William of Moerbeke, while a century before, Averroes, the greatest of the Arabic commentators, had made ample use of at least the earlier Greek expositions. [Introduction, p. 242]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"877","_score":null,"_source":{"id":877,"authors_free":[{"id":1288,"entry_id":877,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on \"Phantasia\"","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on \"Phantasia\""},"abstract":"The ancient commentaries on Aristotle have for the most part \r\nremained in that strange kind of no-man's land between Classical \r\nand Medieval studies that even now holds so many of the productions \r\nof later antiquity. On the whole it would be true to say that students \r\nof Neoplatonism?for the commentators were usually Neoplatonists \r\n?prefer to occupy themselves with openly Neoplatonic writings. \r\nModern Aristotelian scholars, on the other hand, tend to take very \r\nlittle account of the opinions of their ancient predecessors. In this \r\nway they differ from the Medie vals, both Christian and Moslem: as \r\nis well known, Aquinas instigated the translation of many of these \r\ncommentaries by his fellow Dominican, William of Moerbeke, while a \r\ncentury before, Averroes, the greatest of the Arabic commentators, \r\nhad made ample use of at least the earlier Greek expositions. [Introduction, p. 242]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xdGhkQhUkY7sWbE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":877,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Review of Metaphysics","volume":"31","issue":"2","pages":"242-257"}},"sort":[1977]}

Analyse de l'édition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d'Aristote, 1977
By: Cordero, Néstor-Luis
Title Analyse de l'édition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d'Aristote
Type Article
Language French
Date 1977
Journal Hermes
Volume 105
Issue 1
Pages 42-54
Categories no categories
Author(s) Cordero, Néstor-Luis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Pour compléter notre analyse, nous devrions identifier l’éditeur de Simplicius de 1526. Du temps d’Alde, la plupart des ouvrages d’auteurs grecs (rappelons qu’il éditait aussi des ouvrages latins et italiens) étaient réservés à Musurus. À la mort d’Alde, comme nous l’avons dit, Musurus a continué de collaborer avec Andrea d’Asola, mais seulement jusqu’en 1516. En 1517, le fils d’Andrea, Francesco d’Asola, a commencé à travailler à l’imprimerie, et l’année suivante, il figure déjà en tant qu’éditeur responsable de Térence, de Dioscoride et d’Eschyle. À partir de 1518, sauf pour l’édition de Cicéron de 1519, Francesco d’Asola figure en tant que responsable direct de la plupart des éditions aldines où l’on indique le nom de l’éditeur, tout au moins jusqu’en 1529. Mais nous avons des ouvrages d’éditeur anonyme où Francesco d’Asola ne figure qu’en tant qu’auteur de la préface. C’est précisément le cas de l’édition de Simplicius, dont la préface est dédicacée par F. Asulanus au cardinal Hercule Gonzaga. Avec certaines réserves, nous pouvons donc supposer que, d’une manière ou d’une autre, Francesco d’Asola est le responsable de l’édition et, ainsi, l’auteur des conjectures qu’elle présente. En ce qui concerne sa valeur, Renouard fait remarquer qu’il s’agit d’un éditeur intelligent « mais beaucoup trop hardi dans ses conjectures », ainsi qu’il apparaît dans son édition des Argonautica de C. V. Flaccus, en 1523. Cependant, le cas le plus illustratif est son édition d’Homère (à laquelle nous avons fait précédemment allusion) de 1524, qui présente de telles divergences par rapport aux précédentes qu’elle semblerait être fondée sur un nouveau manuscrit. Mais Renouard rejette cette hypothèse : « Il s’agit simplement de conjectures de Francesco d’Asola lui-même, car s’il avait été appuyé de nouveaux manuscrits, il n’eût pas manqué d’en avertir dans une nouvelle préface, au lieu de copier celle d’Alde de l’édition de 1504, déjà imprimée dans celle de 1517. » Tout porte à croire, par conséquent, que l’édition de Simplicius de 1526 a été effectuée sous la responsabilité de Francesco d’Asola, dont les conjectures, en général, n’ont pas été tellement heureuses. Cependant, nous devons reconnaître une fois de plus que nous nous trouvons sur le plan des conjectures et que la possibilité — lointaine, certes — n’est pas exclue que Francesco d’Asola ait disposé de l’archétype de l’œuvre de Simplicius. Toutefois, nous pouvons constater que les manuscrits conservés actuellement présentent le même texte que E et F et, par conséquent, ne justifient pas quelques conjectures "trop hardies". [conclusion p. 53-54]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1277","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1277,"authors_free":[{"id":1866,"entry_id":1277,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":54,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_last_name":"Cordero","norm_person":{"id":54,"first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","last_name":"Cordero","full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055808973","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Analyse de l'\u00e9dition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Analyse de l'\u00e9dition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote"},"abstract":"Pour compl\u00e9ter notre analyse, nous devrions identifier l\u2019\u00e9diteur de Simplicius de 1526. Du temps d\u2019Alde, la plupart des ouvrages d\u2019auteurs grecs (rappelons qu\u2019il \u00e9ditait aussi des ouvrages latins et italiens) \u00e9taient r\u00e9serv\u00e9s \u00e0 Musurus.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 la mort d\u2019Alde, comme nous l\u2019avons dit, Musurus a continu\u00e9 de collaborer avec Andrea d\u2019Asola, mais seulement jusqu\u2019en 1516. En 1517, le fils d\u2019Andrea, Francesco d\u2019Asola, a commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 travailler \u00e0 l\u2019imprimerie, et l\u2019ann\u00e9e suivante, il figure d\u00e9j\u00e0 en tant qu\u2019\u00e9diteur responsable de T\u00e9rence, de Dioscoride et d\u2019Eschyle.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 partir de 1518, sauf pour l\u2019\u00e9dition de Cic\u00e9ron de 1519, Francesco d\u2019Asola figure en tant que responsable direct de la plupart des \u00e9ditions aldines o\u00f9 l\u2019on indique le nom de l\u2019\u00e9diteur, tout au moins jusqu\u2019en 1529.\r\n\r\nMais nous avons des ouvrages d\u2019\u00e9diteur anonyme o\u00f9 Francesco d\u2019Asola ne figure qu\u2019en tant qu\u2019auteur de la pr\u00e9face. C\u2019est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment le cas de l\u2019\u00e9dition de Simplicius, dont la pr\u00e9face est d\u00e9dicac\u00e9e par F. Asulanus au cardinal Hercule Gonzaga.\r\n\r\nAvec certaines r\u00e9serves, nous pouvons donc supposer que, d\u2019une mani\u00e8re ou d\u2019une autre, Francesco d\u2019Asola est le responsable de l\u2019\u00e9dition et, ainsi, l\u2019auteur des conjectures qu\u2019elle pr\u00e9sente.\r\n\r\nEn ce qui concerne sa valeur, Renouard fait remarquer qu\u2019il s\u2019agit d\u2019un \u00e9diteur intelligent \u00ab mais beaucoup trop hardi dans ses conjectures \u00bb, ainsi qu\u2019il appara\u00eet dans son \u00e9dition des Argonautica de C. V. Flaccus, en 1523.\r\n\r\nCependant, le cas le plus illustratif est son \u00e9dition d\u2019Hom\u00e8re (\u00e0 laquelle nous avons fait pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment allusion) de 1524, qui pr\u00e9sente de telles divergences par rapport aux pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes qu\u2019elle semblerait \u00eatre fond\u00e9e sur un nouveau manuscrit. Mais Renouard rejette cette hypoth\u00e8se :\r\n\r\n \u00ab Il s\u2019agit simplement de conjectures de Francesco d\u2019Asola lui-m\u00eame, car s\u2019il avait \u00e9t\u00e9 appuy\u00e9 de nouveaux manuscrits, il n\u2019e\u00fbt pas manqu\u00e9 d\u2019en avertir dans une nouvelle pr\u00e9face, au lieu de copier celle d\u2019Alde de l\u2019\u00e9dition de 1504, d\u00e9j\u00e0 imprim\u00e9e dans celle de 1517. \u00bb\r\n\r\nTout porte \u00e0 croire, par cons\u00e9quent, que l\u2019\u00e9dition de Simplicius de 1526 a \u00e9t\u00e9 effectu\u00e9e sous la responsabilit\u00e9 de Francesco d\u2019Asola, dont les conjectures, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, n\u2019ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 tellement heureuses.\r\n\r\nCependant, nous devons reconna\u00eetre une fois de plus que nous nous trouvons sur le plan des conjectures et que la possibilit\u00e9 \u2014 lointaine, certes \u2014 n\u2019est pas exclue que Francesco d\u2019Asola ait dispos\u00e9 de l\u2019arch\u00e9type de l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nToutefois, nous pouvons constater que les manuscrits conserv\u00e9s actuellement pr\u00e9sentent le m\u00eame texte que E et F et, par cons\u00e9quent, ne justifient pas quelques conjectures \"trop hardies\".\r\n[conclusion p. 53-54]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ooZGKSisiH1j9G1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":54,"full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1277,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"105","issue":"1","pages":"42-54"}},"sort":[1977]}

Neoplatonic Elements in the "de Anima" Commentaries, 1976
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Neoplatonic Elements in the "de Anima" Commentaries
Type Article
Language English
Date 1976
Journal Phronesis
Volume 21
Issue 1
Pages 64-87
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Most scholars who refer to the Greek commentators for help in the understanding of difficult Aristotelian texts seem to expect straightforward scholarly treatment of their problems. Not infrequently they are disappointed and complain about the irrelevance of the commentary they read, or inveigh against the incompetence of the commentators. Only Alexander is generally exempt from such censure, and that in itself is significant. For he is the only major commentator whose work survives in any considerable quantity who wrote before Neoplatonism. Shortly after Alexander, the kind of thought that is conveniently described by this label came to dominate Greek philosophy, and nearly all pagan philosophy and philosophical scholarship was pursued under its influence, if not by its active adherents. It is the purpose of this paper to argue that these facts are not trivial items of background interest but are fundamental to a proper assessment of the later commentators' opinions on points of Aristotelian scholarship. It is necessary to take account of the ideas and purpose of these commentators if one is to make any serious critical use of their work, and this cannot be done if one merely dips into their voluminous works in the hope of occasional enlightenment. That these men were swayed by their own opinions and preconceptions is perhaps obvious once stated. Even Simplicius, notwithstanding his reputation for careful scholarship, is no exception. Simplicius may have done us a great service by preserving fragments of the pre-Socratics, but he was nevertheless a man who entertained ideas which were not likely to lead to the correct interpretation of Aristotle, as Hicks for one saw—Ross, it seems, did not. In fact, one might go so far as to say that Simplicius was less well-fitted than some of the other commentators to give a good account of his subject. Those whose immediate reaction to such a statement is that it is grossly unfair to so fine a scholar might be disturbed by some of the material in the preface to Simplicius' De Anima commentary—as they would by that in Philoponus' as well—material which often escapes notice for the simple reason that one normally refers to these works for help with specific passages and does not read them as a whole. This is not to say that there are no obvious signs of what is going on in the body of the commentaries, for there certainly are. A case in point is Simplicius' claim in the De Caelo commentary (640.27–32) that Aristotle's criticisms of Plato are directed not against Plato himself but against those who failed to grasp Plato's real meaning. In the preface to the commentary on the Categories, Simplicius goes further and says that in dealing with Aristotle's attacks on Plato, one should not consider only the philosophers' language and complain about their discord, but rather one should concentrate on their thought and seek out their accord on most matters (In Cat. 7.29–32). Here we have two expressions of the normal Neoplatonic view that Plato and Aristotle were usually trying to say the same thing. This view can, of course, be traced back to the revival of positive teaching in the New Academy. This is not to say that no Neoplatonist was aware of the differences, and certain Aristotelian doctrines remained unacceptable. In the passage we have just mentioned, Simplicius talks about he en tois pleistois symphonia, and elsewhere he shows that he is alive to differences (e.g., In De Caelo 454.23 ff.), even if he does regard Aristotle as Plato's truest pupil (ib. 378.20 f.) or his best interpreter (In De An. 245.12). Philoponus, moreover, actually protested against the view that Aristotle's attacks on Plato's ideas were not directed at Plato himself, a view that seems to have had some currency (cf. De Aet. M. II.2 29.2–8 R). None the less, ever since Plotinus, whose adoption of much Aristotelian thought would be clear enough without Porphyry's explicit statement on the point (Vita Plot. 14.4 ff.), the new Platonism had been more or less Aristotelianized: the controversies about whether or not Aristotelian views could be accepted by Platonists which had been current in the Middle Platonic period were no longer live. By the time Simplicius and Philoponus composed their commentaries, Aristotle's philosophy had been used as the standard introduction to Plato for at least two centuries. The tendency among certain modern scholars to see Aristotle simply as a Platonist has a precedent in the activities of the Neoplatonists: in both cases, it depends on a somewhat special understanding of Plato. [introduction 64-66]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"612","_score":null,"_source":{"id":612,"authors_free":[{"id":867,"entry_id":612,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonic Elements in the \"de Anima\" Commentaries","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonic Elements in the \"de Anima\" Commentaries"},"abstract":"Most scholars who refer to the Greek commentators for help in the understanding of difficult Aristotelian texts seem to expect straightforward scholarly treatment of their problems. Not infrequently they are disappointed and complain about the irrelevance of the commentary they read, or inveigh against the incompetence of the commentators. Only Alexander is generally exempt from such censure, and that in itself is significant. For he is the only major commentator whose work survives in any considerable quantity who wrote before Neoplatonism.\r\n\r\nShortly after Alexander, the kind of thought that is conveniently described by this label came to dominate Greek philosophy, and nearly all pagan philosophy and philosophical scholarship was pursued under its influence, if not by its active adherents. It is the purpose of this paper to argue that these facts are not trivial items of background interest but are fundamental to a proper assessment of the later commentators' opinions on points of Aristotelian scholarship. It is necessary to take account of the ideas and purpose of these commentators if one is to make any serious critical use of their work, and this cannot be done if one merely dips into their voluminous works in the hope of occasional enlightenment.\r\n\r\nThat these men were swayed by their own opinions and preconceptions is perhaps obvious once stated. Even Simplicius, notwithstanding his reputation for careful scholarship, is no exception. Simplicius may have done us a great service by preserving fragments of the pre-Socratics, but he was nevertheless a man who entertained ideas which were not likely to lead to the correct interpretation of Aristotle, as Hicks for one saw\u2014Ross, it seems, did not. In fact, one might go so far as to say that Simplicius was less well-fitted than some of the other commentators to give a good account of his subject.\r\n\r\nThose whose immediate reaction to such a statement is that it is grossly unfair to so fine a scholar might be disturbed by some of the material in the preface to Simplicius' De Anima commentary\u2014as they would by that in Philoponus' as well\u2014material which often escapes notice for the simple reason that one normally refers to these works for help with specific passages and does not read them as a whole.\r\n\r\nThis is not to say that there are no obvious signs of what is going on in the body of the commentaries, for there certainly are. A case in point is Simplicius' claim in the De Caelo commentary (640.27\u201332) that Aristotle's criticisms of Plato are directed not against Plato himself but against those who failed to grasp Plato's real meaning.\r\n\r\nIn the preface to the commentary on the Categories, Simplicius goes further and says that in dealing with Aristotle's attacks on Plato, one should not consider only the philosophers' language and complain about their discord, but rather one should concentrate on their thought and seek out their accord on most matters (In Cat. 7.29\u201332). Here we have two expressions of the normal Neoplatonic view that Plato and Aristotle were usually trying to say the same thing.\r\n\r\nThis view can, of course, be traced back to the revival of positive teaching in the New Academy. This is not to say that no Neoplatonist was aware of the differences, and certain Aristotelian doctrines remained unacceptable. In the passage we have just mentioned, Simplicius talks about he en tois pleistois symphonia, and elsewhere he shows that he is alive to differences (e.g., In De Caelo 454.23 ff.), even if he does regard Aristotle as Plato's truest pupil (ib. 378.20 f.) or his best interpreter (In De An. 245.12).\r\n\r\nPhiloponus, moreover, actually protested against the view that Aristotle's attacks on Plato's ideas were not directed at Plato himself, a view that seems to have had some currency (cf. De Aet. M. II.2 29.2\u20138 R). None the less, ever since Plotinus, whose adoption of much Aristotelian thought would be clear enough without Porphyry's explicit statement on the point (Vita Plot. 14.4 ff.), the new Platonism had been more or less Aristotelianized: the controversies about whether or not Aristotelian views could be accepted by Platonists which had been current in the Middle Platonic period were no longer live.\r\n\r\nBy the time Simplicius and Philoponus composed their commentaries, Aristotle's philosophy had been used as the standard introduction to Plato for at least two centuries. The tendency among certain modern scholars to see Aristotle simply as a Platonist has a precedent in the activities of the Neoplatonists: in both cases, it depends on a somewhat special understanding of Plato. [introduction 64-66]","btype":3,"date":"1976","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3j2gfRYnCCVhtJC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":612,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"21","issue":"1","pages":"64-87"}},"sort":[1976]}

Anaxagoras B 14 DK, 1976
By: Marcovich, Miroslav
Title Anaxagoras B 14 DK
Type Article
Language English
Date 1976
Journal Hermes
Volume 104
Issue 2
Pages 240-241
Categories no categories
Author(s) Marcovich, Miroslav
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Notes about Anaxagoras B 14 DK

{"_index":"sire","_id":"987","_score":null,"_source":{"id":987,"authors_free":[{"id":1488,"entry_id":987,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":239,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Marcovich, Miroslav","free_first_name":"Miroslav","free_last_name":"Marcovich","norm_person":{"id":239,"first_name":"Miroslav","last_name":"Marcovich","full_name":"Marcovich, Miroslav","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107592630","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaxagoras B 14 DK","main_title":{"title":"Anaxagoras B 14 DK"},"abstract":"Notes about Anaxagoras B 14 DK","btype":3,"date":"1976","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qjqMabHfJRZhGG4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":239,"full_name":"Marcovich, Miroslav","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":987,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"104","issue":"2","pages":"240-241"}},"sort":[1976]}

Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics. A study of the De mixtione with Preliminary Essays, Text, Translation and Commentary, 1976
By: Todd, Robert B.
Title Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics. A study of the De mixtione with Preliminary Essays, Text, Translation and Commentary
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1976
Publication Place Leiden
Publisher Brill
Series Philosophia antiqua
Volume 28
Categories no categories
Author(s) Todd, Robert B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The importance of Alexander of Aphrodisias in the Aristotelian tradition in Western philosophy is well established. This reputa› tion however rests almost exclusively on his very influential inter› pretation of Aristotle’s doctrine of the active intellect. The subject of the present study, the de mixtione, is a treatise in which he deals with the philosophically less important topic of the mixture of physical bodies. My aim is to show that both as an exposition of Aristotelian thought and as an extended discussion of Stoic physics it offers an excellent opportunity to observe the development of Peripatetic scholasticism in the face of ideas developed in post› Aristotelian philosophy. In this way I shall try to establish the largely unacknowledged importance of Alexander’s contribution to the Greek philosophical tradition. Alexander is still unfortunately a relatively obscure author and so I have devoted Part One of this study to a basic description of his works and a preliminary attempt to place him in his intel› lectual milieu. His philosophical creativity, as this essay will show, has greater rein in his short treatises than in his monumental commentaries, and it is from these works that his relation to other philosophical schools can best be gauged. Like his de Jato the de mixtione is basically an attack on the Stoics, but it also contains a great deal of important source material and some constructive criticisms of Stoic physics. Much of this I shall evaluate in a com› mentary in Part Three, but these aspects of the work must also be seen in the light of similar contributions by our other sources for Stoic physics as well as Alexander’s own overall relation to Stoicism. For this reason in Part Two I survey the latter before undertaking an extended examination of Alexander’s exposition and critique of the Stoic theory of total blending (xpiia~<; 8~’ lSAwv), the main subject of the de mixtione. [preface]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"48","_score":null,"_source":{"id":48,"authors_free":[{"id":56,"entry_id":48,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":340,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, Robert B.","free_first_name":"Robert B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":{"id":340,"first_name":"Robert B.","last_name":"Todd","full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129460788","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics. A study of the De mixtione with Preliminary Essays, Text, Translation and Commentary","main_title":{"title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics. A study of the De mixtione with Preliminary Essays, Text, Translation and Commentary"},"abstract":"The importance of Alexander of Aphrodisias in the Aristotelian \r\ntradition in Western philosophy is well established. This reputa\u203a\r\ntion however rests almost exclusively on his very influential inter\u203a\r\npretation of Aristotle\u2019s doctrine of the active intellect. The subject \r\nof the present study, the de mixtione, is a treatise in which he deals \r\nwith the philosophically less important topic of the mixture of \r\nphysical bodies. My aim is to show that both as an exposition of \r\nAristotelian thought and as an extended discussion of Stoic physics \r\nit offers an excellent opportunity to observe the development of \r\nPeripatetic scholasticism in the face of ideas developed in post\u203a\r\nAristotelian philosophy. In this way I shall try to establish the \r\nlargely unacknowledged importance of Alexander\u2019s contribution to \r\nthe Greek philosophical tradition. \r\nAlexander is still unfortunately a relatively obscure author \r\nand so I have devoted Part One of this study to a basic description \r\nof his works and a preliminary attempt to place him in his intel\u203a\r\nlectual milieu. His philosophical creativity, as this essay will show, \r\nhas greater rein in his short treatises than in his monumental \r\ncommentaries, and it is from these works that his relation to other \r\nphilosophical schools can best be gauged. Like his de Jato the \r\nde mixtione is basically an attack on the Stoics, but it also contains \r\na great deal of important source material and some constructive \r\ncriticisms of Stoic physics. Much of this I shall evaluate in a com\u203a\r\nmentary in Part Three, but these aspects of the work must also \r\nbe seen in the light of similar contributions by our other sources \r\nfor Stoic physics as well as Alexander\u2019s own overall relation to \r\nStoicism. For this reason in Part Two I survey the latter before \r\nundertaking an extended examination of Alexander\u2019s exposition \r\nand critique of the Stoic theory of total blending (xpiia~<; 8~\u2019 lSAwv), the main subject of the de mixtione. [preface]","btype":1,"date":"1976","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4Gg0RFYjZ0oHdLr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":48,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"28","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1976]}

Doxographica Anaxagorea, 1975
By: Schofield, Malcom
Title Doxographica Anaxagorea
Type Article
Language English
Date 1975
Journal Hermes
Volume 103
Issue 1
Pages 1-24
Categories no categories
Author(s) Schofield, Malcom
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The information provided by these three texts that Anaxagoras made special application of his general theory of mixture to problems of growth and nutrition derives in each case from Theophrastus, whose word we have no reason to doubt, and who is in any case supported by Aristotle in De Generatione Animalium. The view, again presented in all three texts, that it was from reflection upon such problems, chiefly or in part, that Anaxagoras was led to formulate his general theory again derives from Theophrastus (and solely from him in Aetius's case) or from Aristotle glossed by Theophrastus (in the case of Simplicius and the scholium). For it is Aristotle who says that it was from seeing everything coming out of everything that Anaxagoras arrived at the theory of mixture, it is Aristotle who invariably illustrates Anaxagoras's "all things" by flesh and bone, and it is upon texts of Aristotle containing this explanation and these illustrations that both Simplicius's commentary and the scholium are based. Aristotle does not concentrate on biological processes exclusively, to be sure, but no doubt Theophrastus was acting in the spirit of Aristotle when he illustrates his own Aristotelian exposition of Anaxagoras's train of thought by reference to the problem of nutrition. How much, then, are the texts to which Jaeger appealed for his account of Anaxagoras's "methodical point of departure" worth? Just and only as much as are Aristotle and Theophrastus. But whether they are right is, as I have said, another story. [conclusion p. 24]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"854","_score":null,"_source":{"id":854,"authors_free":[{"id":1258,"entry_id":854,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":285,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schofield, Malcom","free_first_name":"Malcom","free_last_name":"Schofield","norm_person":{"id":285,"first_name":"Malcolm","last_name":"Schofield","full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132323737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Doxographica Anaxagorea","main_title":{"title":"Doxographica Anaxagorea"},"abstract":"The information provided by these three texts that Anaxagoras made special application of his general theory of mixture to problems of growth and nutrition derives in each case from Theophrastus, whose word we have no reason to doubt, and who is in any case supported by Aristotle in De Generatione Animalium. The view, again presented in all three texts, that it was from reflection upon such problems, chiefly or in part, that Anaxagoras was led to formulate his general theory again derives from Theophrastus (and solely from him in Aetius's case) or from Aristotle glossed by Theophrastus (in the case of Simplicius and the scholium). For it is Aristotle who says that it was from seeing everything coming out of everything that Anaxagoras arrived at the theory of mixture, it is Aristotle who invariably illustrates Anaxagoras's \"all things\" by flesh and bone, and it is upon texts of Aristotle containing this explanation and these illustrations that both Simplicius's commentary and the scholium are based. Aristotle does not concentrate on biological processes exclusively, to be sure, but no doubt Theophrastus was acting in the spirit of Aristotle when he illustrates his own Aristotelian exposition of Anaxagoras's train of thought by reference to the problem of nutrition.\r\n\r\nHow much, then, are the texts to which Jaeger appealed for his account of Anaxagoras's \"methodical point of departure\" worth? Just and only as much as are Aristotle and Theophrastus. But whether they are right is, as I have said, another story. [conclusion p. 24]","btype":3,"date":"1975","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dX7s9j2RuDMGCdU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":285,"full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":854,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"103","issue":"1","pages":"1-24"}},"sort":[1975]}

Der kleine Pauly, Band 5, 1975
By: Sontheimer, Walther (Ed.), Ziegler, Konrat (Ed.)
Title Der kleine Pauly, Band 5
Type Edited Book
Language German
Date 1975
Publication Place München
Publisher Druckenmüller
Series Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike
Volume 5
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Sontheimer, Walther , Ziegler, Konrat
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"264","_score":null,"_source":{"id":264,"authors_free":[{"id":334,"entry_id":264,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":67,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sontheimer, Walther ","free_first_name":"Walther ","free_last_name":"Sontheimer","norm_person":{"id":67,"first_name":"Walther ","last_name":"Sontheimer","full_name":"Sontheimer, Walther ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117476307","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1880,"entry_id":264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":68,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ziegler, Konrat","free_first_name":"Konrat","free_last_name":"Ziegler","norm_person":{"id":68,"first_name":"Konrat","last_name":"Ziegler","full_name":"Ziegler, Konrat","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118772805","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der kleine Pauly, Band 5","main_title":{"title":"Der kleine Pauly, Band 5"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1975","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nT4V3xwm4Jp1gS4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":67,"full_name":"Sontheimer, Walther ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":68,"full_name":"Ziegler, Konrat","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":264,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnchen","publisher":"Druckenm\u00fcller","series":"Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1975]}

"Simplikios", 1975
By: Dörrie, Heinrich , Konrat Ziegler (Ed.)
Title "Simplikios"
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1975
Published in Der kleine Pauly, Band 5
Pages 205
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dörrie, Heinrich
Editor(s) Konrat Ziegler
Translator(s)
Simplikios (Σιμπλίκιος), Neuplatoniker, Schüler des Ammonios, Sohnes des Hermeias. Simplikios muss von Alexandria nach Athen übergesiedelt sein. Als das Schließungsedikt von 529 erging, war er Mitglied der Akademie. Mit anderen Akademikern versuchte er, im persischen Reich, vermutlich zu Ktesiphon am Hofe des Königs Chosroes I., eine neue Stätte für philosophische Forschung und Lehre zu begründen. Das schlug fehl; 533 kehrte Simplikios mit seinen Kollegen ins Römische Reich zurück, wo es ihm untersagt war, eine Lehrtätigkeit auszuüben. Alle Schriften von Simplikios, die erhalten sind, wurden nach 533 verfasst. Er war der letzte Platoniker, der in seinen Schriften das Christentum angriff. Seine Werke sind durchweg Kommentare, allerdings ist kein Kommentar von ihm zu einem Dialog Platons bekannt; vermutlich erschien es ihm als zwecklos, mit den Kommentaren des Proklos in Wettstreit zu treten. Verloren ist sein Hauptwerk, der Kommentar zu Aristoteles’ Metaphysik. In Handschriften erhalten, aber noch nicht ediert, sind ein Kommentar zu Hermogenes’ τέχνη und zu Iamblichos’ περί τής Πυθαγόρου αἱρέσεως. Erhalten und sämtlich in den Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca ediert sind folgende Kommentare: De caelo, ed. J. L. Heiberg, 1894 (CAG VII). Categoriae, ed. C. Kalbfleisch, 1907 (CAG VIII). Physica, ed. H. Diels, 1882, 1895 (CAG IX und X). De anima, ed. M. Hayduck, 1882 (CAG XI). Das ungewöhnlichste Werk von Simplikios ist sein Kommentar zum Ἐγχειρίδιον des Epiktet. Die dringend notwendige Neuausgabe wird von Frau Dr. I. Hadot vorbereitet. Viele Kommentare anderer Platoniker sind aus Vorlesungen für Anfänger hervorgegangen. Im Vergleich dazu stehen die Kommentare von Simplikios auf einem weit höheren Niveau. Ihm, der nicht mehr lehren durfte, ging es darum, für künftige Gelehrte zu schreiben. „Gerade seine nüchternere Weise macht ihn im Verein mit seiner großen Gelehrsamkeit zu einem höchst achtenswerten Kommentator.“ (K. Praechter). In engem Zusammenhang damit steht, dass Simplikios vor allem im Kommentar zur Physik Zitate aus vorsokratischen Philosophen in beträchtlichem Umfang in seinen Text aufgenommen hat (Stellenverzeichnis bei Diels Vorsokratiker³, 638–640). Dass Empedokles und Parmenides für uns mehr sind als nur Namen, ist einzig Simplikios zu verdanken. Die Beweisführung von Simplikios tendiert dahin, dass aus allen Philosophen die gleiche σοφία und der gleiche λόγος spricht wie aus Platon. Das gilt für die Vorsokratiker ebenso wie für Aristoteles: Wo dieser Platon widerspricht, handelt es sich nur um eine Diskrepanz in Worten. So wird seine riesige Arbeit zu einer imposanten Apologie der Lehre, dass alle Philosophen – selbstverständlich auch Epiktet – immer nur die eine, stets sich selbst gleiche, unwandelbare Wahrheit verkündet haben. Außer dem RE-Artikel von K. Praechter gibt es keine zusammenfassende Würdigung von Simplikios. [the entire text]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1292","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1292,"authors_free":[{"id":1881,"entry_id":1292,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":69,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","free_first_name":"Heinrich ","free_last_name":"D\u00f6rrie","norm_person":{"id":69,"first_name":"Heinrich ","last_name":"D\u00f6rrie","full_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118526375","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2697,"entry_id":1292,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Konrat Ziegler","free_first_name":"Konrat","free_last_name":"Ziegler","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"\"Simplikios\"","main_title":{"title":"\"Simplikios\""},"abstract":"Simplikios (\u03a3\u03b9\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), Neuplatoniker, Sch\u00fcler des Ammonios, Sohnes des Hermeias. Simplikios muss von Alexandria nach Athen \u00fcbergesiedelt sein. Als das Schlie\u00dfungsedikt von 529 erging, war er Mitglied der Akademie. Mit anderen Akademikern versuchte er, im persischen Reich, vermutlich zu Ktesiphon am Hofe des K\u00f6nigs Chosroes I., eine neue St\u00e4tte f\u00fcr philosophische Forschung und Lehre zu begr\u00fcnden. Das schlug fehl; 533 kehrte Simplikios mit seinen Kollegen ins R\u00f6mische Reich zur\u00fcck, wo es ihm untersagt war, eine Lehrt\u00e4tigkeit auszu\u00fcben.\r\n\r\nAlle Schriften von Simplikios, die erhalten sind, wurden nach 533 verfasst. Er war der letzte Platoniker, der in seinen Schriften das Christentum angriff. Seine Werke sind durchweg Kommentare, allerdings ist kein Kommentar von ihm zu einem Dialog Platons bekannt; vermutlich erschien es ihm als zwecklos, mit den Kommentaren des Proklos in Wettstreit zu treten.\r\n\r\nVerloren ist sein Hauptwerk, der Kommentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 Metaphysik. In Handschriften erhalten, aber noch nicht ediert, sind ein Kommentar zu Hermogenes\u2019 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7 und zu Iamblichos\u2019 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Erhalten und s\u00e4mtlich in den Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca ediert sind folgende Kommentare:\r\n\r\n De caelo, ed. J. L. Heiberg, 1894 (CAG VII).\r\n Categoriae, ed. C. Kalbfleisch, 1907 (CAG VIII).\r\n Physica, ed. H. Diels, 1882, 1895 (CAG IX und X).\r\n De anima, ed. M. Hayduck, 1882 (CAG XI).\r\n\r\nDas ungew\u00f6hnlichste Werk von Simplikios ist sein Kommentar zum \u1f18\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd des Epiktet. Die dringend notwendige Neuausgabe wird von Frau Dr. I. Hadot vorbereitet.\r\n\r\nViele Kommentare anderer Platoniker sind aus Vorlesungen f\u00fcr Anf\u00e4nger hervorgegangen. Im Vergleich dazu stehen die Kommentare von Simplikios auf einem weit h\u00f6heren Niveau. Ihm, der nicht mehr lehren durfte, ging es darum, f\u00fcr k\u00fcnftige Gelehrte zu schreiben. \u201eGerade seine n\u00fcchternere Weise macht ihn im Verein mit seiner gro\u00dfen Gelehrsamkeit zu einem h\u00f6chst achtenswerten Kommentator.\u201c (K. Praechter).\r\n\r\nIn engem Zusammenhang damit steht, dass Simplikios vor allem im Kommentar zur Physik Zitate aus vorsokratischen Philosophen in betr\u00e4chtlichem Umfang in seinen Text aufgenommen hat (Stellenverzeichnis bei Diels Vorsokratiker\u00b3, 638\u2013640). Dass Empedokles und Parmenides f\u00fcr uns mehr sind als nur Namen, ist einzig Simplikios zu verdanken.\r\n\r\nDie Beweisf\u00fchrung von Simplikios tendiert dahin, dass aus allen Philosophen die gleiche \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 und der gleiche \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 spricht wie aus Platon. Das gilt f\u00fcr die Vorsokratiker ebenso wie f\u00fcr Aristoteles: Wo dieser Platon widerspricht, handelt es sich nur um eine Diskrepanz in Worten. So wird seine riesige Arbeit zu einer imposanten Apologie der Lehre, dass alle Philosophen \u2013 selbstverst\u00e4ndlich auch Epiktet \u2013 immer nur die eine, stets sich selbst gleiche, unwandelbare Wahrheit verk\u00fcndet haben.\r\n\r\nAu\u00dfer dem RE-Artikel von K. Praechter gibt es keine zusammenfassende W\u00fcrdigung von Simplikios. [the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"1975","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kSQQwhdCGL94DDh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":69,"full_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1292,"section_of":264,"pages":"205","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":264,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Der kleine Pauly, Band 5","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sontheimer1975","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1975","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1975","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nT4V3xwm4Jp1gS4","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":264,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnchen","publisher":"Druckenm\u00fcller","series":"Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1975]}

Simplicius, 1975
By: Verbeke, Gérard, Gillispie, Charles Coulston (Ed.)
Title Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1975
Published in Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS
Pages 440-443
Categories no categories
Author(s) Verbeke, Gérard
Editor(s) Gillispie, Charles Coulston
Translator(s)
Simplicius was one of the most famous representatives of Neoplatonism in the sixth century. An outstanding scholar, he was the author of extensive commentaries on Aristotle that contain much valuable information on previous Greek philosophy, including the pre-Socratics. Very little is known of his life. According to Agathias (History, 11,30,3), he was born in Cilicia. He received his first philosophical education in Alexandria at the school of Ammonius Hermiae, the author of a large commentary on the Peri Hermeneias and on some other logical, physical, and metaphysical treatises of Aristotle. These works strongly influenced not only the commentaries of Simplicius but also those written by the philosophers of the Alexandrian School: Asclepius, Philoponus, and Olympiodorus. Simplicius also studied philosophy at Athens in the school of Damascius, the author of Problems and Solutions About the First Principles, known for his doctrine of the Ineffable First Principle. According to Damascius, no name is capable of expressing adequately the nature of that Principle, not even the Plotinian name of "the One." Damascius was the last pagan Neoplatonist in the unbroken succession of the Athenian school, where he was teaching when Justinian closed it in 529. Simplicius, who at that time was a member of Damascius’ circle, left Athens with him and five other philosophers and moved to Persia (531-532). Their exile was only temporary, for they returned to the empire after the treaty of peace between the Byzantines and the Persians (533). According to Agathias (History, 11,31,4), the terms of the treaty would have guaranteed to the philosophers full security in their own environment: they were not to be compelled to accept anything against their personal conviction, and they were never to be prevented from living according to their own philosophical doctrine. There are grounds for supposing that Simplicius settled in Athens after returning from Persia. Presumably, he was not allowed to deliver public lectures and thus could devote all his time to research and writing. Hence his commentaries are not related to any teaching activity; rather, they show the character of written expositions that carefully analyze the Aristotelian text and interpret it in the light of the whole history of Greek philosophy. Simplicius always endeavored to harmonize and reconcile Plato and Aristotle by reducing the differences between them to a question of vocabulary, point of view, or even misunderstanding of some Platonic theories by the Stagirite. Simplicius was not the first to take this approach. According to W. Jaeger, this trend can be traced to Posidonius and to Neoplatonic philosophy in general. The same method was certainly used by Ammonius, who always attempted to reduce the opposition between Plato and Aristotle to different viewpoints. For example, in dealing with Aristotle’s criticism of the theory of Ideas, Ammonius believed this criticism to concern not the authentic doctrine of Plato, but rather the opinion of some philosophers who attributed to the Ideas an independent subsistence, separate from the Intellect of the Demiurge (Asclepius, In Metaphysicorum, 69,24-27; 73,27). Apparently, Simplicius was persuaded that this approach was in agreement with the attitude of the philopatheis and that it uncovered the true meaning of philosophical doctrines. At first glance, he said, some theories seem to be quite contradictory, but a more accurate inquiry shows them to be reconcilable (In de Caelo, 159,3-9). Moreover, in explaining a philosophical text, one should not be biased for or against its author. Hence Simplicius opposed the method of Alexander, who from the beginning is suspicious of Plato in the same way that others are inspired with prejudice against Aristotle (In de Caelo, 297,1-4). Since agreement on an opinion, even a prephilosophical one, has often been considered a criterion of truth, Aristotle and the Stoics frequently used the argument of universal agreement. Therefore, having to cope with the increasing influence of Christianity, late Neoplatonic philosophers wanted to argue against the presumed disaccord between the main representatives of Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, in order to enhance their own doctrine. As a Christian, Philoponus did not have the same motives for harmonizing Plato and Aristotle; he firmly opposed attempts to reconcile them and called this interpretation a kind of mythology. Aristotle, he held, did not argue against those who misunderstood Plato but against the authentic Platonic doctrine. As a commentator, Simplicius did not overestimate his own contributions but was quite aware of his debt to other philosophers, especially to Alexander, Iamblichus, and Porphyry (In Categorias, 3,10-13). He did not hesitate to call his own commentaries a mere introduction to the writings of these famous masters (In Categorias, 3,13-17), nor did he cling fanatically to his own interpretations; he was happy to exchange them for better explanations (In Categorias, 350,8-9). On the other hand, the work of a commentator is far from being a neutral undertaking or a question of mere erudition; it is chiefly an opportunity to become more familiar with the text under consideration and to elucidate some intricate passages (In Enchiridion, Praefatio, 2,24-29; In de Caelo, 102,15; 166,14-16; In Categorias, 3,4-6). Hence Simplicius’ constant concern to obtain reliable documents and to check the historical value of this information, as when he verified the information provided by Alexander about the squaring of the circle according to Hippocrates of Chios (In Physicorum, 60,22-68, 32). Simplicius adhered to the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of the world, as a theory that fits perfectly into the Neoplatonic ontology insofar as the eternal movement of the heavens is a necessary link between the pure eternity of the intelligible reality and the temporal character of material beings. With respect to this question, Simplicius strongly opposed Philoponus, who asserted the beginning of the world through divine creation. Philoponus, however, did not argue as a Christian, nor did he base his refutation of the Aristotelian doctrine on arguments drawn from his Christian faith. According to him, God is the principle of whatever exists: if time is infinite, nothing may ever come to be, because an infinite number of conditions of possibility are to be fulfilled before anything could begin to exist—which is clearly impossible. Simplicius’ notion of “infinite” is different; it does not mean an infinity existing at once, but a possibility of transcending any boundary. Consequently, the conception of time exposed by both authors is not the same. Simplicius professed a cyclical conception; Philoponus adhered to a linear view without regular return of the same events. Philoponus also substantiated divine creation in time, without preexisting matter; whereas Simplicius maintained that although heaven, the first and highest corporeal reality, is totally dependent upon God, it has never come to exist; it must be eternal because it springs immediately from God. [introduction p. 440-441]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1393","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1393,"authors_free":[{"id":2163,"entry_id":1393,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2165,"entry_id":1393,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":354,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","free_first_name":"Charles Coulston","free_last_name":"Gillispie","norm_person":{"id":354,"first_name":"Charles Coulston","last_name":"Gillispie","full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117710539","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius was one of the most famous representatives of Neoplatonism in the sixth century. An outstanding scholar, he was the author of extensive commentaries on Aristotle that contain much valuable information on previous Greek philosophy, including the pre-Socratics.\r\n\r\nVery little is known of his life. According to Agathias (History, 11,30,3), he was born in Cilicia. He received his first philosophical education in Alexandria at the school of Ammonius Hermiae, the author of a large commentary on the Peri Hermeneias and on some other logical, physical, and metaphysical treatises of Aristotle. These works strongly influenced not only the commentaries of Simplicius but also those written by the philosophers of the Alexandrian School: Asclepius, Philoponus, and Olympiodorus.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also studied philosophy at Athens in the school of Damascius, the author of Problems and Solutions About the First Principles, known for his doctrine of the Ineffable First Principle. According to Damascius, no name is capable of expressing adequately the nature of that Principle, not even the Plotinian name of \"the One.\" Damascius was the last pagan Neoplatonist in the unbroken succession of the Athenian school, where he was teaching when Justinian closed it in 529. Simplicius, who at that time was a member of Damascius\u2019 circle, left Athens with him and five other philosophers and moved to Persia (531-532). Their exile was only temporary, for they returned to the empire after the treaty of peace between the Byzantines and the Persians (533). According to Agathias (History, 11,31,4), the terms of the treaty would have guaranteed to the philosophers full security in their own environment: they were not to be compelled to accept anything against their personal conviction, and they were never to be prevented from living according to their own philosophical doctrine.\r\n\r\nThere are grounds for supposing that Simplicius settled in Athens after returning from Persia. Presumably, he was not allowed to deliver public lectures and thus could devote all his time to research and writing. Hence his commentaries are not related to any teaching activity; rather, they show the character of written expositions that carefully analyze the Aristotelian text and interpret it in the light of the whole history of Greek philosophy. Simplicius always endeavored to harmonize and reconcile Plato and Aristotle by reducing the differences between them to a question of vocabulary, point of view, or even misunderstanding of some Platonic theories by the Stagirite.\r\n\r\nSimplicius was not the first to take this approach. According to W. Jaeger, this trend can be traced to Posidonius and to Neoplatonic philosophy in general. The same method was certainly used by Ammonius, who always attempted to reduce the opposition between Plato and Aristotle to different viewpoints. For example, in dealing with Aristotle\u2019s criticism of the theory of Ideas, Ammonius believed this criticism to concern not the authentic doctrine of Plato, but rather the opinion of some philosophers who attributed to the Ideas an independent subsistence, separate from the Intellect of the Demiurge (Asclepius, In Metaphysicorum, 69,24-27; 73,27).\r\n\r\nApparently, Simplicius was persuaded that this approach was in agreement with the attitude of the philopatheis and that it uncovered the true meaning of philosophical doctrines. At first glance, he said, some theories seem to be quite contradictory, but a more accurate inquiry shows them to be reconcilable (In de Caelo, 159,3-9). Moreover, in explaining a philosophical text, one should not be biased for or against its author. Hence Simplicius opposed the method of Alexander, who from the beginning is suspicious of Plato in the same way that others are inspired with prejudice against Aristotle (In de Caelo, 297,1-4). Since agreement on an opinion, even a prephilosophical one, has often been considered a criterion of truth, Aristotle and the Stoics frequently used the argument of universal agreement. Therefore, having to cope with the increasing influence of Christianity, late Neoplatonic philosophers wanted to argue against the presumed disaccord between the main representatives of Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, in order to enhance their own doctrine. As a Christian, Philoponus did not have the same motives for harmonizing Plato and Aristotle; he firmly opposed attempts to reconcile them and called this interpretation a kind of mythology. Aristotle, he held, did not argue against those who misunderstood Plato but against the authentic Platonic doctrine.\r\n\r\nAs a commentator, Simplicius did not overestimate his own contributions but was quite aware of his debt to other philosophers, especially to Alexander, Iamblichus, and Porphyry (In Categorias, 3,10-13). He did not hesitate to call his own commentaries a mere introduction to the writings of these famous masters (In Categorias, 3,13-17), nor did he cling fanatically to his own interpretations; he was happy to exchange them for better explanations (In Categorias, 350,8-9). On the other hand, the work of a commentator is far from being a neutral undertaking or a question of mere erudition; it is chiefly an opportunity to become more familiar with the text under consideration and to elucidate some intricate passages (In Enchiridion, Praefatio, 2,24-29; In de Caelo, 102,15; 166,14-16; In Categorias, 3,4-6). Hence Simplicius\u2019 constant concern to obtain reliable documents and to check the historical value of this information, as when he verified the information provided by Alexander about the squaring of the circle according to Hippocrates of Chios (In Physicorum, 60,22-68, 32).\r\n\r\nSimplicius adhered to the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of the world, as a theory that fits perfectly into the Neoplatonic ontology insofar as the eternal movement of the heavens is a necessary link between the pure eternity of the intelligible reality and the temporal character of material beings. With respect to this question, Simplicius strongly opposed Philoponus, who asserted the beginning of the world through divine creation. Philoponus, however, did not argue as a Christian, nor did he base his refutation of the Aristotelian doctrine on arguments drawn from his Christian faith. According to him, God is the principle of whatever exists: if time is infinite, nothing may ever come to be, because an infinite number of conditions of possibility are to be fulfilled before anything could begin to exist\u2014which is clearly impossible. Simplicius\u2019 notion of \u201cinfinite\u201d is different; it does not mean an infinity existing at once, but a possibility of transcending any boundary. Consequently, the conception of time exposed by both authors is not the same. Simplicius professed a cyclical conception; Philoponus adhered to a linear view without regular return of the same events. Philoponus also substantiated divine creation in time, without preexisting matter; whereas Simplicius maintained that although heaven, the first and highest corporeal reality, is totally dependent upon God, it has never come to exist; it must be eternal because it springs immediately from God. [introduction p. 440-441]","btype":2,"date":"1975","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dKqS8TkSYL9fWNO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":354,"full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1393,"section_of":1394,"pages":"440-443","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1394,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1975","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Pt8Q1J4Rc3TbiFs","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1394,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Charles Scriber\u2019s Sons","series":"","volume":"XII","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1975]}

Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS, 1975
By: Gillispie, Charles Coulston (Ed.)
Title Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1975
Publication Place New York
Publisher Charles Scriber’s Sons
Volume XII
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Gillispie, Charles Coulston
Translator(s)
The Dictionary of Scientific Biography is a scholarly reference work that was published from 1970 through 1980 by publisher Charles Scribner's Sons, with main editor the science historian Charles Gillispie, from Princeton University. It consisted of sixteen volumes. It is supplemented by the New Dictionary of Scientific Biography (2007). Both these publications are included in a later electronic book, called the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. [wikipedia]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1394","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1394,"authors_free":[{"id":2164,"entry_id":1394,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":354,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","free_first_name":"Charles Coulston","free_last_name":"Gillispie","norm_person":{"id":354,"first_name":"Charles Coulston","last_name":"Gillispie","full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117710539","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS","main_title":{"title":"Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS"},"abstract":"The Dictionary of Scientific Biography is a scholarly reference work that was published from 1970 through 1980 by publisher Charles Scribner's Sons, with main editor the science historian Charles Gillispie, from Princeton University. It consisted of sixteen volumes. It is supplemented by the New Dictionary of Scientific Biography (2007). Both these publications are included in a later electronic book, called the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. [wikipedia]","btype":4,"date":"1975","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zr2wPOTesQdHoAn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":354,"full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1394,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Charles Scriber\u2019s Sons","series":"","volume":"XII","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1975]}

Filologisch-Historische Navorsingen over de Middleeuwse En Humanistische Latijnse Vertalingen van Den Commentaren van Simplicius, Deel I: De Commentaren In Ench., In Phys., In Cat., In De Anima; Deel II: De Commentaar In De Caelo; Deel III: Teksten En Documenten (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leuven), 1975
By: Bossier, Fernand
Title Filologisch-Historische Navorsingen over de Middleeuwse En Humanistische Latijnse Vertalingen van Den Commentaren van Simplicius, Deel I: De Commentaren In Ench., In Phys., In Cat., In De Anima; Deel II: De Commentaar In De Caelo; Deel III: Teksten En Documenten (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leuven)
Type Monograph
Language Dutch
Date 1975
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bossier, Fernand
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1433","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1433,"authors_free":[{"id":2262,"entry_id":1433,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bossier, Fernand","free_first_name":"Fernand","free_last_name":"Bossier","norm_person":{"id":12,"first_name":"Fernand ","last_name":"Bossier","full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017981663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Filologisch-Historische Navorsingen over de Middleeuwse En Humanistische Latijnse Vertalingen van Den Commentaren van Simplicius, Deel I: De Commentaren In Ench., In Phys., In Cat., In De Anima; Deel II: De Commentaar In De Caelo; Deel III: Teksten En Documenten (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leuven)","main_title":{"title":"Filologisch-Historische Navorsingen over de Middleeuwse En Humanistische Latijnse Vertalingen van Den Commentaren van Simplicius, Deel I: De Commentaren In Ench., In Phys., In Cat., In De Anima; Deel II: De Commentaar In De Caelo; Deel III: Teksten En Documenten (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leuven)"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1975","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OlxW2LFE8sTQ8aZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1975]}

Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. Édition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 2, 1975
By: Simplicius , Wilhelm von Moerbeke, Pattin, Adriaan (Ed.)
Title Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. Édition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 2
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1975
Publication Place Louvain
Publisher Publ. Universitaires
Series Corpus Latinum Commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum
Volume 5
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simplicius , Wilhelm von Moerbeke
Editor(s) Pattin, Adriaan
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1455","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1455,"authors_free":[{"id":2470,"entry_id":1455,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2471,"entry_id":1455,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":490,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilhelm von Moerbeke","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Moerbeke, von","norm_person":{"id":490,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"von Moerbeke","full_name":"von Moerbeke, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118633007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2472,"entry_id":1455,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":496,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pattin, Adriaan","free_first_name":"Adriaan","free_last_name":"Pattin","norm_person":{"id":496,"first_name":"Adriaan","last_name":"Pattin","full_name":"Pattin, Adriaan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1089166524","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. \u00c9dition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 2","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. \u00c9dition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 2"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1975","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PGdGZZDu1qnuLcl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":490,"full_name":"von Moerbeke, Wilhelm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":496,"full_name":"Pattin, Adriaan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1455,"pubplace":"Louvain","publisher":"Publ. Universitaires","series":"Corpus Latinum Commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1975]}

Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK, 1974
By: Sider, David
Title Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK
Type Article
Language English
Date 1974
Journal Hermes
Volume 102
Issue 2
Pages 365-367
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sider, David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Note on Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK

{"_index":"sire","_id":"851","_score":null,"_source":{"id":851,"authors_free":[{"id":1255,"entry_id":851,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":320,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sider, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Sider","norm_person":{"id":320,"first_name":"David","last_name":"Sider","full_name":"Sider, David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1129478610","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK","main_title":{"title":"Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK"},"abstract":"Note on Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK","btype":3,"date":"1974","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jfkLIWo4A4TjQYr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":320,"full_name":"Sider, David","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":851,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"102","issue":"2","pages":"365-367"}},"sort":[1974]}

La critique d’authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d’Aristote, 1974
By: Moraux, Paul, Akurgal, Ekrem (Ed.), Alkım, Uluğ Bahadır (Ed.), Mansel, Arif Müfid (Ed.)
Title La critique d’authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d’Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1974
Published in Mansel’e Armağan. Mélanges Mansel, vol. I
Pages 265-288
Categories no categories
Author(s) Moraux, Paul
Editor(s) Akurgal, Ekrem , Alkım, Uluğ Bahadır , Mansel, Arif Müfid
Translator(s)
Tout comme l’archéologie, la numismatique ou l’épigraphie, l’histoire littéraire est parfois amenée à se demander si les matériaux sur lesquels elle travaille sont bien authentiques. Dans la transmission des textes antiques, en effet, les erreurs fortuites d’attribution devaient se produire plus aisément que de nos jours. Par ailleurs, la notion de propriété littéraire était assez flottante ; un auteur plus récent ne se faisait aucun scrupule à reproduire, parfois littéralement, ce qu’un auteur plus ancien avait écrit sur le même sujet. Enfin, pour les raisons les plus diverses, il y a eu parfois fraude délibérée, le faussaire lançant sous un autre nom, souvent un nom illustre, un ouvrage de son cru. Il est remarquable que, dans les derniers siècles de l’Antiquité grecque, les commentateurs d’Aristote se soient posé la question de savoir si tel ou tel écrit dont ils avaient à s’occuper était bien l’œuvre d’Aristote. Divers témoignages nous apprennent même que le problème de l’authenticité était l’un de ceux que le commentateur devait aborder dans son introduction, avant de s’attaquer à l’analyse et à l’interprétation du texte proprement dit. On se rappellera que dans une sorte d’introduction générale à la lecture d’Aristote, Ammonius et plusieurs autres commentateurs issus de son école s’arrêtaient aux dix questions suivantes : D’où les diverses écoles philosophiques tirent-elles leur nom ? Comment faut-il classer les ouvrages d’Aristote ? Par quelle discipline doit-on commencer l’étude de la philosophie aristotélicienne ? Quel est le but de cette philosophie ? Par quels moyens peut-on arriver à ce but ? Quels sont les caractères de l’exposé ou du style d’Aristote ? Comment justifier l’obscurité d’Aristote ? Quelles sont les qualités requises de l’interprète d’Aristote ? Quelles sont les qualités requises de l’étudiant qui aborde la philosophie d’Aristote ? Quelles questions convient-il d’examiner avant d’étudier chaque traité en particulier ? Nous n’avons pas à nous étendre ici sur le problème, assez controversé, de l’origine de ce schéma. Disons simplement que, même si sa forme stéréotypée est assez récente, certains de ses éléments sont à coup sûr bien antérieurs à Ammonius, chez qui le schéma apparaît pour la première fois. C’est le dixième point qui doit retenir ici notre attention. De l’avis des commentateurs, il convient, en effet, avant d’expliquer chaque traité, de répondre dans l’introduction aux six questions suivantes : Quel est le but du traité en question ? Quelle est son utilité ? Quelle est sa place dans l’œuvre d’Aristote ? Comment expliquer son titre ? Le traité est-il authentique ? Quelles en sont les grandes divisions ? Bien sûr, toutes ces questions ne se posent pas dans tous les cas avec la même acuité : il peut arriver, par exemple, que l’utilité de l’ouvrage soit évidente, ou que son titre soit clair, ou encore que son authenticité saute aux yeux et n’ait jamais été contestée ; alors, le commentateur n’aura pas à s’étendre sur ces questions. Quoi qu’il en soit, il est intéressant de noter que le problème de l’authenticité faisait partie des sujets habituellement abordés par les commentateurs dans leurs introductions aux divers ouvrages d’Aristote. Nous nous proposons d’examiner, dans les pages qui suivent, les quelques traces de cette critique d’authenticité qui ont survécu dans les commentaires arrivés jusqu’à nous. Plusieurs commentateurs néoplatoniciens indiquent pour quelles raisons et à la suite de quelles circonstances il a pu se faire que l’on attribue au Stagirite des ouvrages n’émanant pas de lui. En gros, ils citent les motifs suivants : Certains rois payaient bien les textes qu’ils acquéraient pour les bibliothèques qu’ils avaient créées ; cela ne pouvait qu’inciter les faussaires au travail. Par ailleurs, la similitude de certains noms d’auteurs ou de certains titres a pu provoquer des confusions ou des erreurs d’attribution. Enfin, partant de bonnes intentions, certains disciples ont fait à leur maître l’honneur de lui attribuer leurs propres productions. Ces indications des commentateurs sur les causes des attributions erronées viennent de faire l’objet d’une bonne étude ; nous n’y reviendrons donc pas. En revanche, nous croyons utile d’examiner plus en détail les déclarations des commentateurs relatives à l’authenticité de certains traités du corpus aristotelicum. Cela nous permettra de voir quels arguments étaient utilisés pour établir ou contester l’authenticité d’un ouvrage, et aussi de mesurer la valeur des jugements portés dans les différents cas. Les traités ou parties de traités sur lesquels nous possédons, à cet égard, des renseignements concrets sont : les Catégories, les Postprédicaments (chapitres 10-15 des Catégories), le De interpretatione, les Analytiques, la Physique, les Météorologiques, et les deux premiers livres de la Métaphysique. [introduction p. 265-267]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"956","_score":null,"_source":{"id":956,"authors_free":[{"id":1434,"entry_id":956,"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}},{"id":2111,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":262,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","free_first_name":"Ekrem","free_last_name":"Akurgal","norm_person":{"id":262,"first_name":"Ekrem","last_name":"Akurgal","full_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118859358","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2112,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":261,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","free_first_name":"Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","free_last_name":"Alk\u0131m","norm_person":{"id":261,"first_name":"Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","last_name":"Alk\u0131m","full_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118859137","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2410,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":260,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","free_first_name":"Arif M\u00fcfid","free_last_name":"Mansel","norm_person":{"id":260,"first_name":"Arif M\u00fcfid","last_name":"Mansel","full_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119020068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La critique d\u2019authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"La critique d\u2019authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Tout comme l\u2019arch\u00e9ologie, la numismatique ou l\u2019\u00e9pigraphie, l\u2019histoire litt\u00e9raire est parfois amen\u00e9e \u00e0 se demander si les mat\u00e9riaux sur lesquels elle travaille sont bien authentiques. Dans la transmission des textes antiques, en effet, les erreurs fortuites d\u2019attribution devaient se produire plus ais\u00e9ment que de nos jours. Par ailleurs, la notion de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 litt\u00e9raire \u00e9tait assez flottante\u202f; un auteur plus r\u00e9cent ne se faisait aucun scrupule \u00e0 reproduire, parfois litt\u00e9ralement, ce qu\u2019un auteur plus ancien avait \u00e9crit sur le m\u00eame sujet. Enfin, pour les raisons les plus diverses, il y a eu parfois fraude d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9e, le faussaire lan\u00e7ant sous un autre nom, souvent un nom illustre, un ouvrage de son cru.\r\n\r\nIl est remarquable que, dans les derniers si\u00e8cles de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 grecque, les commentateurs d\u2019Aristote se soient pos\u00e9 la question de savoir si tel ou tel \u00e9crit dont ils avaient \u00e0 s\u2019occuper \u00e9tait bien l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote. Divers t\u00e9moignages nous apprennent m\u00eame que le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 \u00e9tait l\u2019un de ceux que le commentateur devait aborder dans son introduction, avant de s\u2019attaquer \u00e0 l\u2019analyse et \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du texte proprement dit. On se rappellera que dans une sorte d\u2019introduction g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 la lecture d\u2019Aristote, Ammonius et plusieurs autres commentateurs issus de son \u00e9cole s\u2019arr\u00eataient aux dix questions suivantes :\r\n\r\n D\u2019o\u00f9 les diverses \u00e9coles philosophiques tirent-elles leur nom ?\r\n Comment faut-il classer les ouvrages d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Par quelle discipline doit-on commencer l\u2019\u00e9tude de la philosophie aristot\u00e9licienne ?\r\n Quel est le but de cette philosophie ?\r\n Par quels moyens peut-on arriver \u00e0 ce but ?\r\n Quels sont les caract\u00e8res de l\u2019expos\u00e9 ou du style d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Comment justifier l\u2019obscurit\u00e9 d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Quelles sont les qualit\u00e9s requises de l\u2019interpr\u00e8te d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Quelles sont les qualit\u00e9s requises de l\u2019\u00e9tudiant qui aborde la philosophie d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Quelles questions convient-il d\u2019examiner avant d\u2019\u00e9tudier chaque trait\u00e9 en particulier ?\r\n\r\nNous n\u2019avons pas \u00e0 nous \u00e9tendre ici sur le probl\u00e8me, assez controvers\u00e9, de l\u2019origine de ce sch\u00e9ma. Disons simplement que, m\u00eame si sa forme st\u00e9r\u00e9otyp\u00e9e est assez r\u00e9cente, certains de ses \u00e9l\u00e9ments sont \u00e0 coup s\u00fbr bien ant\u00e9rieurs \u00e0 Ammonius, chez qui le sch\u00e9ma appara\u00eet pour la premi\u00e8re fois. C\u2019est le dixi\u00e8me point qui doit retenir ici notre attention. De l\u2019avis des commentateurs, il convient, en effet, avant d\u2019expliquer chaque trait\u00e9, de r\u00e9pondre dans l\u2019introduction aux six questions suivantes :\r\n\r\n Quel est le but du trait\u00e9 en question ?\r\n Quelle est son utilit\u00e9 ?\r\n Quelle est sa place dans l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Comment expliquer son titre ?\r\n Le trait\u00e9 est-il authentique ?\r\n Quelles en sont les grandes divisions ?\r\n\r\nBien s\u00fbr, toutes ces questions ne se posent pas dans tous les cas avec la m\u00eame acuit\u00e9\u202f: il peut arriver, par exemple, que l\u2019utilit\u00e9 de l\u2019ouvrage soit \u00e9vidente, ou que son titre soit clair, ou encore que son authenticit\u00e9 saute aux yeux et n\u2019ait jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 contest\u00e9e\u202f; alors, le commentateur n\u2019aura pas \u00e0 s\u2019\u00e9tendre sur ces questions. Quoi qu\u2019il en soit, il est int\u00e9ressant de noter que le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 faisait partie des sujets habituellement abord\u00e9s par les commentateurs dans leurs introductions aux divers ouvrages d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nNous nous proposons d\u2019examiner, dans les pages qui suivent, les quelques traces de cette critique d\u2019authenticit\u00e9 qui ont surv\u00e9cu dans les commentaires arriv\u00e9s jusqu\u2019\u00e0 nous. Plusieurs commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens indiquent pour quelles raisons et \u00e0 la suite de quelles circonstances il a pu se faire que l\u2019on attribue au Stagirite des ouvrages n\u2019\u00e9manant pas de lui. En gros, ils citent les motifs suivants :\r\n\r\n Certains rois payaient bien les textes qu\u2019ils acqu\u00e9raient pour les biblioth\u00e8ques qu\u2019ils avaient cr\u00e9\u00e9es\u202f; cela ne pouvait qu\u2019inciter les faussaires au travail.\r\n Par ailleurs, la similitude de certains noms d\u2019auteurs ou de certains titres a pu provoquer des confusions ou des erreurs d\u2019attribution.\r\n Enfin, partant de bonnes intentions, certains disciples ont fait \u00e0 leur ma\u00eetre l\u2019honneur de lui attribuer leurs propres productions.\r\n\r\nCes indications des commentateurs sur les causes des attributions erron\u00e9es viennent de faire l\u2019objet d\u2019une bonne \u00e9tude\u202f; nous n\u2019y reviendrons donc pas. En revanche, nous croyons utile d\u2019examiner plus en d\u00e9tail les d\u00e9clarations des commentateurs relatives \u00e0 l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 de certains trait\u00e9s du corpus aristotelicum. Cela nous permettra de voir quels arguments \u00e9taient utilis\u00e9s pour \u00e9tablir ou contester l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 d\u2019un ouvrage, et aussi de mesurer la valeur des jugements port\u00e9s dans les diff\u00e9rents cas.\r\n\r\nLes trait\u00e9s ou parties de trait\u00e9s sur lesquels nous poss\u00e9dons, \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard, des renseignements concrets sont :\r\n\r\n les Cat\u00e9gories,\r\n les Postpr\u00e9dicaments (chapitres 10-15 des Cat\u00e9gories),\r\n le De interpretatione,\r\n les Analytiques,\r\n la Physique,\r\n les M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques,\r\n et les deux premiers livres de la M\u00e9taphysique. [introduction p. 265-267]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0K9jPcuuBUt3j54","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":262,"full_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":261,"full_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":260,"full_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":956,"section_of":296,"pages":"265-288","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":296,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Mansel\u2019e Arma\u011fan. M\u00e9langes Mansel, vol. I","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Mansel1974","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ySvGVCjObmF3lEv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":296,"pubplace":"Ankara","publisher":"T\u00fcrk Tarih Kurumu Bas\u0131mevi","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1974]}

Mansel’e Armağan. Mélanges Mansel, vol. I, 1974
By: Mansel, Arif Müfid (Ed.), Akurgal, Ekrem (Ed.), Alkım, Uluğ Bahadır (Ed.)
Title Mansel’e Armağan. Mélanges Mansel, vol. I
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1974
Publication Place Ankara
Publisher Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Mansel, Arif Müfid , Akurgal, Ekrem , Alkım, Uluğ Bahadır
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"296","_score":null,"_source":{"id":296,"authors_free":[{"id":2086,"entry_id":296,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":260,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","free_first_name":"Arif M\u00fcfid","free_last_name":"Mansel","norm_person":{"id":260,"first_name":"Arif M\u00fcfid","last_name":"Mansel","full_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119020068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2087,"entry_id":296,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":262,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","free_first_name":"Ekrem","free_last_name":"Akurgal","norm_person":{"id":262,"first_name":"Ekrem","last_name":"Akurgal","full_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118859358","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2088,"entry_id":296,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":261,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","free_first_name":"Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","free_last_name":"Alk\u0131m","norm_person":{"id":261,"first_name":"Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","last_name":"Alk\u0131m","full_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118859137","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mansel\u2019e Arma\u011fan. M\u00e9langes Mansel, vol. I","main_title":{"title":"Mansel\u2019e Arma\u011fan. M\u00e9langes Mansel, vol. I"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1974","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ySvGVCjObmF3lEv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":260,"full_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":262,"full_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":261,"full_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":296,"pubplace":"Ankara","publisher":"T\u00fcrk Tarih Kurumu Bas\u0131mevi","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1974]}

Vorschläge zur Lösung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios, 1974
By: Wiesner, Jürgen, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Vorschläge zur Lösung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1974
Published in PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus
Pages 261-319
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Zwischen den Xenophanesreferaten von MXG und Simplikios besteht keine völlige Parallelität, weshalb inXG als Quelle von Simplikios ausscheidet. Denn während die MXG-Prädikate 1, 2, 3, 6 (977 a 14-36, 977 b 3-18; und Simpl.Phys. 22,31- 23,9 einer gemeinsamen Vorlage ent­ stammen, die wir wegen gewisser Eigenheiten als "spät- eleatische Quelle" bezeichneten, hat MXG zusätzlich einen Mittelteil (977 a 37- 977 b 2; mit formal vom Rest abweichenden (kürzere und einfachere Aussage ohne Dichotomie) und zu diesem teilweise widersprüchlichen Prädikaten (Unvereinbarkeit Kugel - Grenzantinomie;. Prädikate dieses MXG-Mittelteils findet Simplikios Phys. 23,16 ff. bei Alexander und greift sie an; da aber auch der zuverlässige Theophrastexzerptor hippolytos sie in gleicher Polge wie Alexander innerhalb einer Prädikat­ reihe für den Gott des Xenophanes nennt (Ref. I 14,2), geht also der Mittelteil des MXG-Referats auf dieselben Ausführungen des Eresiers zurück.Doch auch Simplikios gibt über das mit MXG Gemeinsame hinaus Auszüge aus Theophrast (dessen Dame Phys. 22,28- 29), die unverkennbar Elemente aus Aristoteles Metaphys. 986 b 10 ff. enthalten. [conclusion p. 319]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"433","_score":null,"_source":{"id":433,"authors_free":[{"id":583,"entry_id":433,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2170,"entry_id":433,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Vorschl\u00e4ge zur L\u00f6sung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Vorschl\u00e4ge zur L\u00f6sung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios"},"abstract":"Zwischen den Xenophanesreferaten von MXG und Simplikios \r\nbesteht keine v\u00f6llige Parallelit\u00e4t, weshalb inXG als \r\nQuelle von Simplikios ausscheidet. Denn w\u00e4hrend die \r\nMXG-Pr\u00e4dikate 1, 2, 3, 6 (977 a 14-36, 977 b 3-18; und \r\nSimpl.Phys. 22,31- 23,9 einer gemeinsamen Vorlage ent\u00ad\r\nstammen, die wir wegen gewisser Eigenheiten als \"sp\u00e4t- \r\neleatische Quelle\" bezeichneten, hat MXG zus\u00e4tzlich \r\neinen Mittelteil (977 a 37- 977 b 2; mit formal vom \r\nRest abweichenden (k\u00fcrzere und einfachere Aussage ohne \r\nDichotomie) und zu diesem teilweise widerspr\u00fcchlichen \r\nPr\u00e4dikaten (Unvereinbarkeit Kugel - Grenzantinomie;. \r\nPr\u00e4dikate dieses MXG-Mittelteils findet Simplikios Phys. \r\n23,16 ff. bei Alexander und greift sie an; da aber auch \r\nder zuverl\u00e4ssige Theophrastexzerptor hippolytos sie in \r\ngleicher Polge wie Alexander innerhalb einer Pr\u00e4dikat\u00ad\r\nreihe f\u00fcr den Gott des Xenophanes nennt (Ref. I 14,2), \r\ngeht also der Mittelteil des MXG-Referats auf dieselben \r\nAusf\u00fchrungen des Eresiers zur\u00fcck.Doch auch Simplikios gibt \u00fcber das mit MXG Gemeinsame \r\nhinaus Ausz\u00fcge aus Theophrast (dessen Dame Phys. 22,28- \r\n29), die unverkennbar Elemente aus Aristoteles Metaphys. \r\n986 b 10 ff. enthalten. [conclusion p. 319]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tEjo8iqE5bxx49Z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":433,"section_of":2,"pages":"261-319","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1974]}

Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Prädikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?, 1974
By: Wiesner, Jürgen, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Prädikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1974
Published in PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus
Pages 208-229
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Ziel dieses Kapitels war es zunächst, die Rückführbarkeit des Xenophanes-Referates von Simplikios und MXG auf Theophrast anhand eines Beispiels zu überprüfen. Wenn dabei die These von Steinmetz an einem entscheidenden Punkt erschüttert worden ist, da MXG mit den antinomischen Prädikaten ebensowenig eine zuverlässige Wiedergabe des Eresiers sein kann wie Simplikios, stellt sich die Frage: Was wird aus seiner Herleitung der beiden Parallelberichte teils aus den φυσικαὶ δόξαι, teils aus der Physik? [conclusion p. 229]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"434","_score":null,"_source":{"id":434,"authors_free":[{"id":584,"entry_id":434,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2169,"entry_id":434,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?","main_title":{"title":"Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?"},"abstract":"Ziel dieses Kapitels war es zun\u00e4chst, die R\u00fcckf\u00fchrbarkeit des Xenophanes-Referates von Simplikios und MXG auf Theophrast anhand eines Beispiels zu \u00fcberpr\u00fcfen. Wenn dabei die These von Steinmetz an einem entscheidenden Punkt ersch\u00fcttert worden ist, da MXG mit den antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikaten ebensowenig eine zuverl\u00e4ssige Wiedergabe des Eresiers sein kann wie Simplikios, stellt sich die Frage: Was wird aus seiner Herleitung der beiden Parallelberichte teils aus den \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9, teils aus der Physik? [conclusion p. 229]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3Dxf4dLb8SNzbok","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":434,"section_of":2,"pages":"208-229","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1974]}

Die Beweise für die Unbewegtheit und Unveränderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8), 1974
By: Wiesner, Jürgen, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Die Beweise für die Unbewegtheit und Unveränderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8)
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1974
Published in PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus
Pages 99-164
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Wie nach der Diskussion aller textlichen Prägen völlig eindeutig ist, erwähnt der MXG-Autor in 976a12 Körperlichkeit des Einen für Melissos: hôs autos legei meint diesen Eleaten ebenso wie das spätere kai autos houtô g' einai axioi in 976a23. Die Stelle ist zur Beurteilung der Zuverlässigkeit des Autors von Wert, wie immer man sie erklären mag, weil Kenntnis des Originals auf jeden Fall ausscheidet. Wenn (a) kai touto sôma, wie es den Anschein hat, noch zu dem Zitat hôs autos legei gehört, kann diese Angabe nur aus einer Sekundärquelle geschöpft sein; aber auch falls (b) hôs autos legei, wie Apelt annimmt, allein auf ev zu beziehen ist und kai touto sôma bereits ein eigenständiger Zusatz des MXG-Autors ist, kann diesem die Aussage des Originals kaum bekannt gewesen sein. Denn in seiner Stellungnahme geht der Anonymus, selbst wenn er z.T. inadäquate Ausdeutungen daran anknüpft (z.B. homoion als homoimeres), prinzipiell von den ihm bekannten Thesen des Melissos aus. Die Annahme von sôma und mere für den Eleaten kann daher eigentlich nur bedeuten, dass dessen wirkliche Ansichten dem Autor nicht vorlagen, ihm also offenbar keine über das Referat hinausgehenden Positionen des Melissos verfügbar waren. Gegen das Zeugnis des Simplikios lassen sich somit die Angaben von MXG, wie es Zeller wollte, nicht ausspielen. Der Neuplatoniker sagt mit Recht Unkörperlichkeit für das melisseische Seiende aus; wenn er von diesem als ideellem, vollkommenem im Gegensatz zum körperlichen, kontingenten Seienden spricht (Simpl. Phys. 650,5) und in der Paraphrase den Terminus to haplôs on anwendet (Phys. 103,18-19), darf der Abstand zu dem ideellen Seienden des mit Platon einsetzenden Dualismus natürlich nicht übersehen werden. Die Eleaten verbleiben auf der Ebene dieses Seins, wie es Aristoteles (Cael. I 1, 298b21 ff.) sehr deutlich formuliert: Sie hätten nichts außer den tôn aisthetôn ousia angenommen, auf die sie die für die Existenz von Wissen notwendigen, von ihnen zuerst erkannten Charakteristika des eigentlichen Seins übertragen hätten. Melissos ist dabei radikaler als Parmenides verfahren: Dieser hatte – stets unter Bezug auf dieses Sein – nach einem Aufriss gemäß den Forderungen des Denkens dann in der Doxa-Lehre den geläufigen Anschauungen in gewisser Weise Rechnung getragen; demgegenüber betrachtet Melissos dieses Sein allein unter dem Gesichtspunkt der deduzierten Prädikate. Einen mit Parmenides vergleichbaren Doxateil, wie es Reinhardt annehmen wollte, gibt es bei ihm nicht; wohl aber gibt es, wie die voraufgehenden Untersuchungen gezeigt haben, einen zweiten Teil der Schrift des Melissos, in dem pluralistische Konzeptionen wie Vielheit und Mischung am eleatischen Einen und seinen Eigenschaften gemessen und abgelehnt wurden. In diesen Zusammenhang ließ sich auch das umstrittene fr. B9 einordnen, dessen sprachliche Formulierung enge Berührungen mit B8 aufweist: ei ... eiê bezieht sich auf die gegnerische Konzeption (B9 wie B8,6), die im Falle einer wirklichen Existenz dem Kriterium des eleatischen Einen genügen müsste (dei-Satz in B9, kei-Sätze in B8,6; B8,2). Wenn nun, wie es in B9 weiter heißt, sôma und pachos Teile implizieren, musste Melissos für das Seiende eine solche Körperlichkeit ausschließen. [conclusion p. 163-164]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"435","_score":null,"_source":{"id":435,"authors_free":[{"id":585,"entry_id":435,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2168,"entry_id":435,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Beweise f\u00fcr die Unbewegtheit und Unver\u00e4nderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8)","main_title":{"title":"Die Beweise f\u00fcr die Unbewegtheit und Unver\u00e4nderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8)"},"abstract":"Wie nach der Diskussion aller textlichen Pr\u00e4gen v\u00f6llig eindeutig ist, erw\u00e4hnt der MXG-Autor in 976a12 K\u00f6rperlichkeit des Einen f\u00fcr Melissos: h\u00f4s autos legei meint diesen Eleaten ebenso wie das sp\u00e4tere kai autos hout\u00f4 g' einai axioi in 976a23. Die Stelle ist zur Beurteilung der Zuverl\u00e4ssigkeit des Autors von Wert, wie immer man sie erkl\u00e4ren mag, weil Kenntnis des Originals auf jeden Fall ausscheidet.\r\n\r\nWenn (a) kai touto s\u00f4ma, wie es den Anschein hat, noch zu dem Zitat h\u00f4s autos legei geh\u00f6rt, kann diese Angabe nur aus einer Sekund\u00e4rquelle gesch\u00f6pft sein; aber auch falls (b) h\u00f4s autos legei, wie Apelt annimmt, allein auf ev zu beziehen ist und kai touto s\u00f4ma bereits ein eigenst\u00e4ndiger Zusatz des MXG-Autors ist, kann diesem die Aussage des Originals kaum bekannt gewesen sein. Denn in seiner Stellungnahme geht der Anonymus, selbst wenn er z.T. inad\u00e4quate Ausdeutungen daran ankn\u00fcpft (z.B. homoion als homoimeres), prinzipiell von den ihm bekannten Thesen des Melissos aus. Die Annahme von s\u00f4ma und mere f\u00fcr den Eleaten kann daher eigentlich nur bedeuten, dass dessen wirkliche Ansichten dem Autor nicht vorlagen, ihm also offenbar keine \u00fcber das Referat hinausgehenden Positionen des Melissos verf\u00fcgbar waren.\r\n\r\nGegen das Zeugnis des Simplikios lassen sich somit die Angaben von MXG, wie es Zeller wollte, nicht ausspielen. Der Neuplatoniker sagt mit Recht Unk\u00f6rperlichkeit f\u00fcr das melisseische Seiende aus; wenn er von diesem als ideellem, vollkommenem im Gegensatz zum k\u00f6rperlichen, kontingenten Seienden spricht (Simpl. Phys. 650,5) und in der Paraphrase den Terminus to hapl\u00f4s on anwendet (Phys. 103,18-19), darf der Abstand zu dem ideellen Seienden des mit Platon einsetzenden Dualismus nat\u00fcrlich nicht \u00fcbersehen werden. Die Eleaten verbleiben auf der Ebene dieses Seins, wie es Aristoteles (Cael. I 1, 298b21 ff.) sehr deutlich formuliert: Sie h\u00e4tten nichts au\u00dfer den t\u00f4n aisthet\u00f4n ousia angenommen, auf die sie die f\u00fcr die Existenz von Wissen notwendigen, von ihnen zuerst erkannten Charakteristika des eigentlichen Seins \u00fcbertragen h\u00e4tten.\r\n\r\nMelissos ist dabei radikaler als Parmenides verfahren: Dieser hatte \u2013 stets unter Bezug auf dieses Sein \u2013 nach einem Aufriss gem\u00e4\u00df den Forderungen des Denkens dann in der Doxa-Lehre den gel\u00e4ufigen Anschauungen in gewisser Weise Rechnung getragen; demgegen\u00fcber betrachtet Melissos dieses Sein allein unter dem Gesichtspunkt der deduzierten Pr\u00e4dikate. Einen mit Parmenides vergleichbaren Doxateil, wie es Reinhardt annehmen wollte, gibt es bei ihm nicht; wohl aber gibt es, wie die voraufgehenden Untersuchungen gezeigt haben, einen zweiten Teil der Schrift des Melissos, in dem pluralistische Konzeptionen wie Vielheit und Mischung am eleatischen Einen und seinen Eigenschaften gemessen und abgelehnt wurden.\r\n\r\nIn diesen Zusammenhang lie\u00df sich auch das umstrittene fr. B9 einordnen, dessen sprachliche Formulierung enge Ber\u00fchrungen mit B8 aufweist: ei ... ei\u00ea bezieht sich auf die gegnerische Konzeption (B9 wie B8,6), die im Falle einer wirklichen Existenz dem Kriterium des eleatischen Einen gen\u00fcgen m\u00fcsste (dei-Satz in B9, kei-S\u00e4tze in B8,6; B8,2). Wenn nun, wie es in B9 weiter hei\u00dft, s\u00f4ma und pachos Teile implizieren, musste Melissos f\u00fcr das Seiende eine solche K\u00f6rperlichkeit ausschlie\u00dfen. [conclusion p. 163-164]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rdmGYdcJSPKrtIL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":435,"section_of":2,"pages":"99-164","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1974]}

Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung, 1974
By: Wiesner, Jürgen, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1974
Published in PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus
Pages 17-41
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Von den drei Referaten der Schrift MXG bestehen für den Melissos-Abschnitt die besten Vergleichsmöglichkeiten, da Simplikios bekanntlich umfangreiche Auszüge aus der Schrift des Melissos exzerpiert hat und daneben eine Paraphrase für den Teil der Schrift bietet, der die Prädikate des Seienden behandelt. Obwohl die Quellenlage also weit günstiger ist als im Falle des Xenophanes, finden sich doch divergierende Ansichten über den Grad der Authentizität des Melissos-Referats: Reinhardt hält den Bericht für zuverlässig, da jede spätere Dialektik fehle, mehrfach noch der Wortlaut des Originals durchscheine und die entscheidenden Prädikate des Seienden exakt beibehalten seien. Gigon nennt den Abschnitt zwar "bedeutend schlechter" als das Gorgias-Referat, doch blicke der Text des Melissos unverkennbar durch. Calogero stellt das Nebeneinander von wörtlicher Nähe zum Original und von Unexaktheiten fest, die sich in der falschen Abfolge einzelner Prädikate und der Hinzufügung von Theorien (Mischungslehre) äußerten, und denkt daher an eine Wiedergabe der Melissos-Schrift aus dem Gedächtnis. Untersteiner schreibt einige dialektische Ausarbeitungen und die Hinzufügung der Mischungslehre dem Megariker zu. Während bei diesen Forschern der Melissos-Abschnitt als im Ganzen wertvoll bezeichnet wird, hat Loenen ein völlig negatives Urteil abgegeben: Der Bericht enthalte einerseits Hinzufügungen aller Art, vor allem Unterscheidungen von im Original nicht vorhandenen Möglichkeiten (Entstehung von allem oder nicht allem 974a3-9, Bewegung ins Volle oder ins Leere 974a16-18, Mischungslehre 974a21-b2), andererseits Auslassungen, z.B. fehle die Erklärung wichtiger Termini wie etwa des homoeomeries-Begriffs. Dem Bericht könne deshalb historischer Wert nicht zuerkannt werden. Es soll nun der Melissos-Abschnitt mit dem Original verglichen werden, um den Grad der Authentizität und die Art eventueller Zusätze genau zu ermitteln. Dies bedeutet zugleich den Versuch, bei einem Abschnitt mit günstiger Vergleichslage Kriterien für die Beurteilung des umstrittenen, quellenmäßig weit weniger gesicherten Xenophanes-Referats zu gewinnen. [conclusion p. 40-41]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"436","_score":null,"_source":{"id":436,"authors_free":[{"id":586,"entry_id":436,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2167,"entry_id":436,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung","main_title":{"title":"Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung"},"abstract":"Von den drei Referaten der Schrift MXG bestehen f\u00fcr den Melissos-Abschnitt die besten Vergleichsm\u00f6glichkeiten, da Simplikios bekanntlich umfangreiche Ausz\u00fcge aus der Schrift des Melissos exzerpiert hat und daneben eine Paraphrase f\u00fcr den Teil der Schrift bietet, der die Pr\u00e4dikate des Seienden behandelt. Obwohl die Quellenlage also weit g\u00fcnstiger ist als im Falle des Xenophanes, finden sich doch divergierende Ansichten \u00fcber den Grad der Authentizit\u00e4t des Melissos-Referats: Reinhardt h\u00e4lt den Bericht f\u00fcr zuverl\u00e4ssig, da jede sp\u00e4tere Dialektik fehle, mehrfach noch der Wortlaut des Originals durchscheine und die entscheidenden Pr\u00e4dikate des Seienden exakt beibehalten seien.\r\n\r\nGigon nennt den Abschnitt zwar \"bedeutend schlechter\" als das Gorgias-Referat, doch blicke der Text des Melissos unverkennbar durch. Calogero stellt das Nebeneinander von w\u00f6rtlicher N\u00e4he zum Original und von Unexaktheiten fest, die sich in der falschen Abfolge einzelner Pr\u00e4dikate und der Hinzuf\u00fcgung von Theorien (Mischungslehre) \u00e4u\u00dferten, und denkt daher an eine Wiedergabe der Melissos-Schrift aus dem Ged\u00e4chtnis. Untersteiner schreibt einige dialektische Ausarbeitungen und die Hinzuf\u00fcgung der Mischungslehre dem Megariker zu.\r\n\r\nW\u00e4hrend bei diesen Forschern der Melissos-Abschnitt als im Ganzen wertvoll bezeichnet wird, hat Loenen ein v\u00f6llig negatives Urteil abgegeben: Der Bericht enthalte einerseits Hinzuf\u00fcgungen aller Art, vor allem Unterscheidungen von im Original nicht vorhandenen M\u00f6glichkeiten (Entstehung von allem oder nicht allem 974a3-9, Bewegung ins Volle oder ins Leere 974a16-18, Mischungslehre 974a21-b2), andererseits Auslassungen, z.B. fehle die Erkl\u00e4rung wichtiger Termini wie etwa des homoeomeries-Begriffs. Dem Bericht k\u00f6nne deshalb historischer Wert nicht zuerkannt werden.\r\n\r\nEs soll nun der Melissos-Abschnitt mit dem Original verglichen werden, um den Grad der Authentizit\u00e4t und die Art eventueller Zus\u00e4tze genau zu ermitteln. Dies bedeutet zugleich den Versuch, bei einem Abschnitt mit g\u00fcnstiger Vergleichslage Kriterien f\u00fcr die Beurteilung des umstrittenen, quellenm\u00e4\u00dfig weit weniger gesicherten Xenophanes-Referats zu gewinnen. [conclusion p. 40-41]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dnhawLwLUUqppPb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":436,"section_of":2,"pages":"17-41","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1974]}

PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus, 1974
By: Wiesner, Jürgen
Title PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus
Type Monograph
Language German
Date 1974
Publication Place Amsterdam
Publisher Hakkert
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"2","_score":null,"_source":{"id":2,"authors_free":[{"id":1821,"entry_id":2,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","main_title":{"title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1974]}

Zur Methodik antiker Exegese, 1974
By: Dörrie, Heinrich
Title Zur Methodik antiker Exegese
Type Article
Language German
Date 1974
Journal Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche
Volume 65
Pages 121-138
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dörrie, Heinrich
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Der Artikel behandelt die Exegese antiker Texte und beginnt mit einem Fokus auf die Auslegung Homers. Die homerischen Epen wurden für mehr als 1000 Jahre als Quelle für Bildung und Literatur betrachtet und waren daher von großer Bedeutung für die antike Exegese. Obwohl sich die Sprache, die Werte und die mythologischen Überzeugungen von antiken Texten von der modernen Welt unterscheiden, blieben sie von Bedeutung. Die allegorische Auslegung Homers war ein Schlüsselthema, das später auch auf die christliche Exegese angewendet wurde. Die antike Exegese befasste sich nicht nur mit literarischen Werken, sondern auch mit Orakeln, Sprichwörtern und Riten. Die Methode der antiken Exegese wurde in Alexandrien von den Philologen auf wenige, einfache Fakten reduziert, aber im Allgemeinen blieb sie kontinuierlich und bestätigte das Bildungserbe, auf das sie zurückgriff. Die christliche Exegese wurde stark von der vorausgehenden antiken Exegese beeinflusst, insbesondere von der stoischen Exegese, die Werkzeuge zur Interpretation von Texten bereitstellte. Die Artikel erörtert die Kontinuität der Exegese im Laufe der Jahrhunderte und betont, dass antike Exegese ein Bildungserbe darstellt, das über Jahrhunderte hinweg bewahrt wurde. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1293","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1293,"authors_free":[{"id":1882,"entry_id":1293,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":69,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich","free_first_name":"Heinrich","free_last_name":"D\u00f6rrie","norm_person":{"id":69,"first_name":"Heinrich ","last_name":"D\u00f6rrie","full_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118526375","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Zur Methodik antiker Exegese","main_title":{"title":"Zur Methodik antiker Exegese"},"abstract":"Der Artikel behandelt die Exegese antiker Texte und beginnt mit einem Fokus auf die Auslegung Homers. Die homerischen Epen wurden f\u00fcr mehr als 1000 Jahre als Quelle f\u00fcr Bildung und Literatur betrachtet und waren daher von gro\u00dfer Bedeutung f\u00fcr die antike Exegese. Obwohl sich die Sprache, die Werte und die mythologischen \u00dcberzeugungen von antiken Texten von der modernen Welt unterscheiden, blieben sie von Bedeutung. Die allegorische Auslegung Homers war ein Schl\u00fcsselthema, das sp\u00e4ter auch auf die christliche Exegese angewendet wurde. Die antike Exegese befasste sich nicht nur mit literarischen Werken, sondern auch mit Orakeln, Sprichw\u00f6rtern und Riten. Die Methode der antiken Exegese wurde in Alexandrien von den Philologen auf wenige, einfache Fakten reduziert, aber im Allgemeinen blieb sie kontinuierlich und best\u00e4tigte das Bildungserbe, auf das sie zur\u00fcckgriff. Die christliche Exegese wurde stark von der vorausgehenden antiken Exegese beeinflusst, insbesondere von der stoischen Exegese, die Werkzeuge zur Interpretation von Texten bereitstellte. Die Artikel er\u00f6rtert die Kontinuit\u00e4t der Exegese im Laufe der Jahrhunderte und betont, dass antike Exegese ein Bildungserbe darstellt, das \u00fcber Jahrhunderte hinweg bewahrt wurde. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pWm7MqqJ0rmmM7F","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":69,"full_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1293,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der \u00c4lteren Kirche","volume":"65","issue":"","pages":"121-138"}},"sort":[1974]}

Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?, 1974
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1974
Journal Hermes
Volume 102
Issue 4
Pages 540–556
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Bearing in mind the reservations already made, what conclusions can we draw? In the first place, it is fair to say that the evidence from Simplicius does, taken overall, suggest that Iamblichus did not write a commentary on the de Anima. Consideration of Stephanus' commentary on de Anima G points in the same direction, but it must not be forgotten that that commentary contains a reference to Iamblichus' that looks more like a quotation from a de Anima commentary than any other that we have. Philoponus is less helpful, as are other members of the Alexandrian school. He certainly gives no positive indication that Iamblichus wrote a commentary, but for the reasons that we have given, the lack of such positive evidence in his case does not amount to anything like conclusive negative evidence. We cannot entirely rule out the possibility that Iamblichus did write a commentary, either on the de Anima as a whole, or on some extended part of it, but it seems probably that he did not. If he did it would certainly be fair to say that his commentary was probably of no great importance. Discussions of isolated texts of Aristotle are another matter: they are only to be expected in the work of any Neoplatonist. [conclusion, p. 556]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"569","_score":null,"_source":{"id":569,"authors_free":[{"id":808,"entry_id":569,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?","main_title":{"title":"Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?"},"abstract":"Bearing in mind the reservations already made, what conclusions can we draw? In the first place, it is fair to say that the evidence from Simplicius does, taken overall, suggest that Iamblichus did not write a commentary on the de Anima. Consideration of Stephanus' commentary on de Anima G points in the same direction, but it must not be forgotten that that commentary contains \r\na reference to Iamblichus' that looks more like a quotation from a de Anima commentary than any other that we have. Philoponus is less helpful, as are other members of the Alexandrian school. He certainly gives no positive indication that Iamblichus wrote a commentary, but for the reasons that we have given, the lack of such positive evidence in his case does not amount to \r\nanything like conclusive negative evidence. We cannot entirely rule out the possibility that Iamblichus did write a commentary, either on the de Anima as a whole, or on some extended part of it, but it seems probably that he did \r\nnot. If he did it would certainly be fair to say that his commentary was probably of no great importance. Discussions of isolated texts of Aristotle are another matter: they are only to be expected in the work of any Neoplatonist. [conclusion, p. 556]","btype":3,"date":"1974","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sl42R04H6zbpEIJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":569,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"102","issue":"4","pages":"540\u2013556"}},"sort":[1974]}

Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of περί τῆς ’Αληθείας, 1973
By: Rankin, Herbert David
Title Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of περί τῆς ’Αληθείας
Type Article
Language English
Date 1973
Journal L'Antiquité Classique
Volume 42
Issue 1
Pages 178-180
Categories no categories
Author(s) Rankin, Herbert David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This passage (Simplicii in Categoriarum c. 8 [Arist. p. ]) is placed by Caizzi among a group of passages of epistemological interest but not clearly attributable to any of the works which Antisthenes is said to have composed. Its argument is characteristic enough, being one of the representations of Antisthenes' opposition to Plato's eîdē, and an assertion of his view that the concrete phenomenal object is the starting point of our capability of knowledge, which in his view is probably limited by the restrictions placed upon us by the narrow capacity of our language with regard to logical discourse. The purpose of this article is to consider whether a part of this passage is a quotation from Antisthenes' own writings and to suggest a possible place for it in one of the works with which he is credited. [introduction p. 178]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"861","_score":null,"_source":{"id":861,"authors_free":[{"id":1265,"entry_id":861,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":296,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rankin, Herbert David","free_first_name":"Herbert David","free_last_name":"Rankin","norm_person":{"id":296,"first_name":"Herbert David","last_name":"Rankin","full_name":"Rankin, Herbert David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1058155474","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u2019\u0391\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2","main_title":{"title":"Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u2019\u0391\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2"},"abstract":"This passage (Simplicii in Categoriarum c. 8 [Arist. p. ]) is placed by Caizzi among a group of passages of epistemological interest but not clearly attributable to any of the works which Antisthenes is said to have composed. Its argument is characteristic enough, being one of the representations of Antisthenes' opposition to Plato's e\u00eed\u0113, and an assertion of his view that the concrete phenomenal object is the starting point of our capability of knowledge, which in his view is probably limited by the restrictions placed upon us by the narrow capacity of our language with regard to logical discourse.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of this article is to consider whether a part of this passage is a quotation from Antisthenes' own writings and to suggest a possible place for it in one of the works with which he is credited. [introduction p. 178]","btype":3,"date":"1973","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/a36SykFCN2qyzot","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":296,"full_name":"Rankin, Herbert David","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":861,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"L'Antiquit\u00e9 Classique","volume":"42","issue":"1","pages":"178-180"}},"sort":[1973]}

Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 1: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I. Jh. v. Chr., 1973
By: Moraux, Paul
Title Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 1: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I. Jh. v. Chr.
Type Monograph
Language German
Date 1973
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Peripatoi
Volume 5
Categories no categories
Author(s) Moraux, Paul
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"14","_score":null,"_source":{"id":14,"authors_free":[{"id":15,"entry_id":14,"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":"Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 1: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I. Jh. v. Chr.","main_title":{"title":"Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 1: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I. Jh. v. Chr."},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1973","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VBBIsjdgwwe3ta8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":14,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1973]}

Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric, 1973
By: Kustas, George L.
Title Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1973
Publication Place Thessalonike
Publisher Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikon Meleton
Series Analekta Vlatadōn
Volume 17
Categories no categories
Author(s) Kustas, George L.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1515","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1515,"authors_free":[{"id":2631,"entry_id":1515,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":562,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kustas, George L. ","free_first_name":"George L. ","free_last_name":"Kustas","norm_person":{"id":562,"first_name":"George L. ","last_name":"Kustas","full_name":"Kustas, George L. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric","main_title":{"title":"Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1973","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rxJfkOyETAdcjhw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":562,"full_name":"Kustas, George L. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1515,"pubplace":"Thessalonike ","publisher":"Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikon Meleton","series":"Analekta Vlatado\u0304n","volume":"17","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1973]}

The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge, 1973
By: Kustas, George L.
Title The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1973
Published in Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric
Pages 101-126
Categories no categories
Author(s) Kustas, George L.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Among the works edited in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca are a number of analyses of the Categories, Aristotle’s basic treatise on formal logic, as well as commentaries on Porphyry’s introduction to philosophy, the Isagoge, which is concerned with basic philosophical principles. Those which concern us belong to the fifth/sixth century and are the product of the Alexandrian school of Neoplatonism. The authors are Ammonius, son of Hermeias; his students, John Philoponus and Olympiodorus; and Olympiodorus’ students, Elias and David. To this list we may add Simplicius, who attended Ammonius’ lectures before emigrating to Athens. We are dealing with a common tradition of exegesis. The standard arrangement is several pages of prolegomena, in which the author lays out his purpose and defines his terms, followed by extensive scholia on individual passages. The commentators consistently make the claim that they are clearing up obscurities in the text. Hence the term dodelex appears often in their pages. Our interest, however, lies not here but in their analysis of what they regard as Aristotle’s deliberate use of obscurity as a quality of style designed with a specific end in view. We have therefore to examine in some detail what they say. [introduction p. 101]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1514","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1514,"authors_free":[{"id":2630,"entry_id":1514,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":562,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kustas, George L. ","free_first_name":"George L.","free_last_name":"Kustas","norm_person":{"id":562,"first_name":"George L. ","last_name":"Kustas","full_name":"Kustas, George L. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge","main_title":{"title":"The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge"},"abstract":"Among the works edited in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca are a number of analyses of the Categories, Aristotle\u2019s basic treatise on formal logic, as well as commentaries on Porphyry\u2019s introduction to philosophy, the Isagoge, which is concerned with basic philosophical principles. Those which concern us belong to the fifth\/sixth century and are the product of the Alexandrian school of Neoplatonism. The authors are Ammonius, son of Hermeias; his students, John Philoponus and Olympiodorus; and Olympiodorus\u2019 students, Elias and David. To this list we may add Simplicius, who attended Ammonius\u2019 lectures before emigrating to Athens.\r\n\r\nWe are dealing with a common tradition of exegesis. The standard arrangement is several pages of prolegomena, in which the author lays out his purpose and defines his terms, followed by extensive scholia on individual passages. The commentators consistently make the claim that they are clearing up obscurities in the text. Hence the term dodelex appears often in their pages. Our interest, however, lies not here but in their analysis of what they regard as Aristotle\u2019s deliberate use of obscurity as a quality of style designed with a specific end in view. We have therefore to examine in some detail what they say. [introduction p. 101]","btype":2,"date":"1973","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/czKsHr75gQ60Xo4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":562,"full_name":"Kustas, George L. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1514,"section_of":1515,"pages":"101-126","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1515,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kustas_1973","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1973","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rxJfkOyETAdcjhw","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1515,"pubplace":"Thessalonike ","publisher":"Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikon Meleton","series":"Analekta Vlatado\u0304n","volume":"17","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1514,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"101-126"}},"sort":[1973]}

Necessity, Chance, and Freedom in the Early Atomists, 1972
By: Edmunds, Lowell
Title Necessity, Chance, and Freedom in the Early Atomists
Type Article
Language English
Date 1972
Journal Phoenix
Volume 26
Issue 4
Pages 342-357
Categories no categories
Author(s) Edmunds, Lowell
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In sum, the position of Democritus is decidedly against tyche (chance), and tyche is regarded as a subjective phenomenon. "Men have fashioned an image of Chance as an excuse for their own stupidity. For Chance rarely conflicts with Intelligence, and most things in life can be set in order by an intelligent sharp-sightedness." There remains only one noteworthy fragment that mentions chance: "Daring is the beginning of action, but chance is responsible for the end." Since this fragment contradicts everything else Democritus says about chance, and since the form of Stobaeus' quotation obscures the reference of these words, we are entitled to ask whether we should think of this as Democritus' view of chance in general, or whether he was referring to persons who, contrary to the advice of his other sententiae on chance, relied on moderation and committed themselves to overreaching and tychistic projects. The note of moral exhortation suggests that man has a free choice between alternative ways of life, and thus that he is not in the grip of the original necessity which created the cosmos and him and endowed him with the arts. From the ethical point of view, man seems to emerge as an island of freedom—a floating island, perhaps, in a sea of necessity. If so, then Democritus' system is either dualistic or self-contradictory. However, the example of chance in the ethical thought of Democritus has shown how freedom, if it has any place at all in Democritus' system, should be understood. Man is free to trust to luck through willful disregard for or ignorance of the laws of nature, given by necessity. But he is powerless to change the facts of necessity, and from this point of view, his freedom is an illusion, like the appearance of color. His freedom is merely subjective and of infinite unconcern to the rest of the universe. The atomic theory, which accounted so well for the various appearances of the same phenomena to various people—tragedies and comedies are composed of the same alphabet—also accounted for a specious freedom. [conclusion p. 356-357]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"753","_score":null,"_source":{"id":753,"authors_free":[{"id":1118,"entry_id":753,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":80,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Edmunds, Lowell","free_first_name":"Lowell","free_last_name":"Edmunds","norm_person":{"id":80,"first_name":"Lowell","last_name":"Edmunds","full_name":"Edmunds, Lowell","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116147319X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Necessity, Chance, and Freedom in the Early Atomists","main_title":{"title":"Necessity, Chance, and Freedom in the Early Atomists"},"abstract":"In sum, the position of Democritus is decidedly against tyche (chance), and tyche is regarded as a subjective phenomenon. \"Men have fashioned an image of Chance as an excuse for their own stupidity. For Chance rarely conflicts with Intelligence, and most things in life can be set in order by an intelligent sharp-sightedness.\" There remains only one noteworthy fragment that mentions chance: \"Daring is the beginning of action, but chance is responsible for the end.\" Since this fragment contradicts everything else Democritus says about chance, and since the form of Stobaeus' quotation obscures the reference of these words, we are entitled to ask whether we should think of this as Democritus' view of chance in general, or whether he was referring to persons who, contrary to the advice of his other sententiae on chance, relied on moderation and committed themselves to overreaching and tychistic projects.\r\n\r\nThe note of moral exhortation suggests that man has a free choice between alternative ways of life, and thus that he is not in the grip of the original necessity which created the cosmos and him and endowed him with the arts. From the ethical point of view, man seems to emerge as an island of freedom\u2014a floating island, perhaps, in a sea of necessity. If so, then Democritus' system is either dualistic or self-contradictory.\r\n\r\nHowever, the example of chance in the ethical thought of Democritus has shown how freedom, if it has any place at all in Democritus' system, should be understood. Man is free to trust to luck through willful disregard for or ignorance of the laws of nature, given by necessity. But he is powerless to change the facts of necessity, and from this point of view, his freedom is an illusion, like the appearance of color. His freedom is merely subjective and of infinite unconcern to the rest of the universe.\r\n\r\nThe atomic theory, which accounted so well for the various appearances of the same phenomena to various people\u2014tragedies and comedies are composed of the same alphabet\u2014also accounted for a specious freedom. [conclusion p. 356-357]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NNiKvwijO2dtwFP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":80,"full_name":"Edmunds, Lowell","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":753,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phoenix","volume":"26","issue":"4","pages":"342-357"}},"sort":[1972]}

Priscianus Lydus en de "In De Anima" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius, 1972
By: Bossier, Fernand, Steel, Carlos
Title Priscianus Lydus en de "In De Anima" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius
Type Article
Language Dutch
Date 1972
Journal Tijdschrift voor Filosofie
Volume 34
Issue 4
Pages 761-822
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bossier, Fernand , Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Dans cet article, nous avons essayé d'examiner la valeur de l'attribution traditionnelle du commentaire In De Anima à Simplicius. En comparant ce traité aux grands commentaires de Simplicius (sur les Catégories, la Physique et le De Caelo d'Aristote), nous avons en effet été frappés par les divergences de style et de langue, ainsi que par la différente manière de commenter. Dans la première partie, nous démontrons que l'auteur de In D.A. a également écrit la Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, qui nous a été transmise sous le nom de Priscien le Lydien. 1° Dans In D.A., l'auteur renvoie à une de ses œuvres, qu'il appelle Epitomé de la Physique de Théophraste. En réalité, cette référence se rapporte à un passage de la Metaphrase de Priscien, où la même problématique est exposée dans des termes identiques. 2° Une comparaison détaillée portant sur l'ensemble des deux œuvres nous révèle une telle ressemblance de style et de pensée – il y a même des phrases à peu près identiques – qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer que par l'hypothèse de l'identité de l'auteur. Dans la deuxième partie, nous essayons d'identifier l'auteur de ces deux œuvres qui, pourtant, nous ont été transmises sous deux noms différents. L'étude de la tradition directe et indirecte n'apporte guère de solution, puisque l'attribution des deux textes, l'un à Simplicius, l'autre à Priscien, y paraît très solide. Ce n'est donc que par une critique interne de In D.A., notamment par la confrontation avec les commentaires de Simplicius, dont l'attribution est certaine, que la question pourra être tranchée. 1° Dans In D.A., l'auteur renvoie trois fois à son commentaire sur la Physique. Pourtant, il est bien difficile de retrouver dans le grand commentaire de Simplicius trois passages dont le contenu et surtout le vocabulaire prouvent que l'auteur s'y réfère. 2° Dans In D.A., on ne retrouve pas les traits caractéristiques de la méthode de commentaire de Simplicius, ni l'approche du texte par la documentation historique, ni les longues discussions avec les exégètes antérieurs, ni l'exposé prolixe et bien structuré. D'autre part, aucun des commentaires de Simplicius ne témoigne de la phraséologie tortueuse de notre œuvre, ni de ses formules stéréotypées. 3° La différence doctrinale est encore plus importante. Nulle part chez Simplicius n'apparaît la théorie de l'âme comme epistêmê, qui est si fondamentale dans In D.A. (epistêmê y est un concept-clé). Les rares digressions de In D.A. à propos de questions physiques et logiques ne correspondent pas aux exposés de Simplicius sur les mêmes problèmes. Ainsi, nous avons confronté la doctrine de la physis, de l'âme et de son automotion, et enfin le rapport entre le genre et les différences constitutives et diérétiques. De tout cela se dégage une telle divergence entre In D.A. et les autres commentaires qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer par une évolution chez Simplicius lui-même. In D.A. lui est donc faussement attribué ; et puisque nous avons établi que ce commentaire est du même auteur que la Metaphrase, nous pouvons conclure qu'il a été vraisemblablement écrit par Priscien le Lydien, un philosophe néoplatonicien dont nous savons seulement qu'il a accompagné Damascius et Simplicius en exil en exil en Perse. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1077","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1077,"authors_free":[{"id":1632,"entry_id":1077,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bossier, Fernand","free_first_name":"Fernand","free_last_name":"Bossier","norm_person":{"id":12,"first_name":"Fernand ","last_name":"Bossier","full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017981663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1633,"entry_id":1077,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscianus Lydus en de \"In De Anima\" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Priscianus Lydus en de \"In De Anima\" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius"},"abstract":"Dans cet article, nous avons essay\u00e9 d'examiner la valeur de l'attribution traditionnelle du commentaire In De Anima \u00e0 Simplicius. En comparant ce trait\u00e9 aux grands commentaires de Simplicius (sur les Cat\u00e9gories, la Physique et le De Caelo d'Aristote), nous avons en effet \u00e9t\u00e9 frapp\u00e9s par les divergences de style et de langue, ainsi que par la diff\u00e9rente mani\u00e8re de commenter.\r\n\r\nDans la premi\u00e8re partie, nous d\u00e9montrons que l'auteur de In D.A. a \u00e9galement \u00e9crit la Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, qui nous a \u00e9t\u00e9 transmise sous le nom de Priscien le Lydien.\r\n1\u00b0 Dans In D.A., l'auteur renvoie \u00e0 une de ses \u0153uvres, qu'il appelle Epitom\u00e9 de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste. En r\u00e9alit\u00e9, cette r\u00e9f\u00e9rence se rapporte \u00e0 un passage de la Metaphrase de Priscien, o\u00f9 la m\u00eame probl\u00e9matique est expos\u00e9e dans des termes identiques.\r\n2\u00b0 Une comparaison d\u00e9taill\u00e9e portant sur l'ensemble des deux \u0153uvres nous r\u00e9v\u00e8le une telle ressemblance de style et de pens\u00e9e \u2013 il y a m\u00eame des phrases \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s identiques \u2013 qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer que par l'hypoth\u00e8se de l'identit\u00e9 de l'auteur.\r\n\r\nDans la deuxi\u00e8me partie, nous essayons d'identifier l'auteur de ces deux \u0153uvres qui, pourtant, nous ont \u00e9t\u00e9 transmises sous deux noms diff\u00e9rents. L'\u00e9tude de la tradition directe et indirecte n'apporte gu\u00e8re de solution, puisque l'attribution des deux textes, l'un \u00e0 Simplicius, l'autre \u00e0 Priscien, y para\u00eet tr\u00e8s solide. Ce n'est donc que par une critique interne de In D.A., notamment par la confrontation avec les commentaires de Simplicius, dont l'attribution est certaine, que la question pourra \u00eatre tranch\u00e9e.\r\n1\u00b0 Dans In D.A., l'auteur renvoie trois fois \u00e0 son commentaire sur la Physique. Pourtant, il est bien difficile de retrouver dans le grand commentaire de Simplicius trois passages dont le contenu et surtout le vocabulaire prouvent que l'auteur s'y r\u00e9f\u00e8re.\r\n2\u00b0 Dans In D.A., on ne retrouve pas les traits caract\u00e9ristiques de la m\u00e9thode de commentaire de Simplicius, ni l'approche du texte par la documentation historique, ni les longues discussions avec les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes ant\u00e9rieurs, ni l'expos\u00e9 prolixe et bien structur\u00e9. D'autre part, aucun des commentaires de Simplicius ne t\u00e9moigne de la phras\u00e9ologie tortueuse de notre \u0153uvre, ni de ses formules st\u00e9r\u00e9otyp\u00e9es.\r\n3\u00b0 La diff\u00e9rence doctrinale est encore plus importante. Nulle part chez Simplicius n'appara\u00eet la th\u00e9orie de l'\u00e2me comme epist\u00eam\u00ea, qui est si fondamentale dans In D.A. (epist\u00eam\u00ea y est un concept-cl\u00e9). Les rares digressions de In D.A. \u00e0 propos de questions physiques et logiques ne correspondent pas aux expos\u00e9s de Simplicius sur les m\u00eames probl\u00e8mes.\r\n\r\nAinsi, nous avons confront\u00e9 la doctrine de la physis, de l'\u00e2me et de son automotion, et enfin le rapport entre le genre et les diff\u00e9rences constitutives et di\u00e9r\u00e9tiques. De tout cela se d\u00e9gage une telle divergence entre In D.A. et les autres commentaires qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer par une \u00e9volution chez Simplicius lui-m\u00eame. In D.A. lui est donc faussement attribu\u00e9 ; et puisque nous avons \u00e9tabli que ce commentaire est du m\u00eame auteur que la Metaphrase, nous pouvons conclure qu'il a \u00e9t\u00e9 vraisemblablement \u00e9crit par Priscien le Lydien, un philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien dont nous savons seulement qu'il a accompagn\u00e9 Damascius et Simplicius en exil en exil en Perse. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/r917awdAL4tkrdc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1077,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Tijdschrift voor Filosofie","volume":"34","issue":"4","pages":"761-822"}},"sort":[1972]}

The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1, 1972
By: Abraham, William E.
Title The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1
Type Article
Language English
Date 1972
Journal Phronesis
Volume 17
Issue 1
Pages 40-52
Categories no categories
Author(s) Abraham, William E.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius has preserved (Phys. 140, 34) a Zenonian argument purporting to show that if an object of positive magnitude has parts from which it derives its size, then any such object must be at once of infinite magnitude and zero magnitude. This surprising consequence is based upon a construction which Zeno makes, but his argument is widely thought to be grossly fallacious. Most often he is supposed to have misunderstood the arithmetic of his own construction. Evidently, any such charge must be premised on some view of the particular nature of the sequence to which Zeno's construction gives rise. I seek to develop a view that Zeno's argument is in fact free from fallacy, and offer reason to fear that his real argument has usually been missed. [p. 40]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"780","_score":null,"_source":{"id":780,"authors_free":[{"id":1145,"entry_id":780,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":3,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abraham, William E.","free_first_name":"William E.","free_last_name":"Abraham","norm_person":{"id":3,"first_name":"William E.","last_name":"Abraham","full_name":"Abraham, William E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120967007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1","main_title":{"title":"The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1"},"abstract":"Simplicius has preserved (Phys. 140, 34) a Zenonian argument purporting to show that if an object of positive magnitude has parts from \r\nwhich it derives its size, then any such object must be at once of \r\ninfinite magnitude and zero magnitude. This surprising consequence \r\nis based upon a construction which Zeno makes, but his argument is \r\nwidely thought to be grossly fallacious. Most often he is supposed to \r\nhave misunderstood the arithmetic of his own construction. Evidently, \r\nany such charge must be premised on some view of the particular \r\nnature of the sequence to which Zeno's construction gives rise. I seek \r\nto develop a view that Zeno's argument is in fact free from fallacy, \r\nand offer reason to fear that his real argument has usually been missed. [p. 40]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QHBs8Wv701RyPQh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":3,"full_name":"Abraham, William E.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":780,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"17","issue":"1","pages":"40-52"}},"sort":[1972]}

Poion and Poiotes in Stoic Philosophy, 1972
By: Reesor, Margaret E.
Title Poion and Poiotes in Stoic Philosophy
Type Article
Language English
Date 1972
Journal Phronesis
Volume 17
Issue 3
Pages 279-285
Categories no categories
Author(s) Reesor, Margaret E.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The second category, poia, is the most puzzling of the four Stoic categories. The general term poion (qualified) included the koinos poion (generically qualified) and the idios poion (individually qualified), but the relationship between these two concepts is by no means clear. It is even more difficult to see how they were connected with the idia poiotes (particular quality) and the koine poiotis (common quality). In order to explain how the four terms were related, I shall undertake in this paper as thorough an investigation as possible of a diaeresis described by Boethius in his Commentary on Aristotle's De Interpretatione. Boethius outlines a diaeresis of possible and necessary propositions in Stoic philosophy. He writes: "They (the Stoics) divide propositions in this way: of propositions, they say, some are possible, others impossible; of the possible, some are necessary, others non-necessary; again, of the non-necessary, some are possible and others impossible, foolishly and recklessly deciding that the possible is both a genus and a species of the non-necessary." In the chart below, I have reconstructed this diaeresis, using the definitions of the terms and the examples given by Diogenes Laertius. [introduction p. 279]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"859","_score":null,"_source":{"id":859,"authors_free":[{"id":1263,"entry_id":859,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":302,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Reesor, Margaret E.","free_first_name":"Margaret E.","free_last_name":"Reesor","norm_person":{"id":302,"first_name":"Margaret E.","last_name":"Reesor","full_name":"Reesor, Margaret E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Poion and Poiotes in Stoic Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Poion and Poiotes in Stoic Philosophy"},"abstract":"The second category, poia, is the most puzzling of the four Stoic categories. The general term poion (qualified) included the koinos poion (generically qualified) and the idios poion (individually qualified), but the relationship between these two concepts is by no means clear. It is even more difficult to see how they were connected with the idia poiotes (particular quality) and the koine poiotis (common quality).\r\n\r\nIn order to explain how the four terms were related, I shall undertake in this paper as thorough an investigation as possible of a diaeresis described by Boethius in his Commentary on Aristotle's De Interpretatione.\r\n\r\nBoethius outlines a diaeresis of possible and necessary propositions in Stoic philosophy. He writes: \"They (the Stoics) divide propositions in this way: of propositions, they say, some are possible, others impossible; of the possible, some are necessary, others non-necessary; again, of the non-necessary, some are possible and others impossible, foolishly and recklessly deciding that the possible is both a genus and a species of the non-necessary.\"\r\n\r\nIn the chart below, I have reconstructed this diaeresis, using the definitions of the terms and the examples given by Diogenes Laertius. [introduction p. 279]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DItDwer65QVZSCC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":302,"full_name":"Reesor, Margaret E.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":859,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"17","issue":"3","pages":"279-285"}},"sort":[1972]}

Pseudo-Archytas über die Kategorien, 1972
By: Szlezák, Thomas Alexander
Title Pseudo-Archytas über die Kategorien
Type Monograph
Language German
Date 1972
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Peripatoi
Volume 4
Categories no categories
Author(s) Szlezák, Thomas Alexander
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"220","_score":null,"_source":{"id":220,"authors_free":[{"id":282,"entry_id":220,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":509,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Szlez\u00e1k, Thomas Alexander","free_first_name":"Thomas Alexander","free_last_name":"Szlez\u00e1k","norm_person":{"id":509,"first_name":"Thomas Alexander","last_name":"Szlez\u00e1k","full_name":"Szlez\u00e1k, Thomas Alexander","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11775403X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pseudo-Archytas \u00fcber die Kategorien","main_title":{"title":"Pseudo-Archytas \u00fcber die Kategorien"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1972","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/B53kIQ1NXPQYKjd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":509,"full_name":"Szlez\u00e1k, Thomas Alexander","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":220,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi","volume":"4","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1972]}

Epitêdeiolês in Philosophical Literature: Towards an Analysis, 1972
By: Todd, R. B.
Title Epitêdeiolês in Philosophical Literature: Towards an Analysis
Type Article
Language undefined
Date 1972
Journal Acta Classica
Volume 15
Pages 25-35
Categories no categories
Author(s) Todd, R. B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1562","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1562,"authors_free":[{"id":2729,"entry_id":1562,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, R. B.","free_first_name":"R. B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Epit\u00eadeiol\u00eas in Philosophical Literature: Towards an Analysis","main_title":{"title":"Epit\u00eadeiol\u00eas in Philosophical Literature: Towards an Analysis"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/i1HyYnNymEt19CA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1562,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Acta Classica","volume":"15","issue":"","pages":"25-35"}},"sort":[1972]}

Le Néoplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le Néoplatonisme organisé dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique à Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969, 1971
By: Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Le Néoplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le Néoplatonisme organisé dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique à Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1971
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)
The book is a valuable resource for scholars and students of Neoplatonism, providing a comprehensive overview of the history and development of this important philosophical tradition. It is divided into three main sections. The first section focuses on the historical development of Neoplatonism, tracing its origins in the philosophy of Plato and its development through the works of Plotinus, Proclus, and other Neoplatonic thinkers. The second section explores the relationship between Neoplatonism and other philosophical traditions, such as Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism. The third section examines the influence of Neoplatonism on literature and Christianity. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1257","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1257,"authors_free":[{"id":1836,"entry_id":1257,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":23,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","free_first_name":"Pierre-Maxime ","free_last_name":"Schuhl","norm_person":{"id":23,"first_name":"Pierre-Maxime","last_name":"Schuhl","full_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117559718X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2336,"entry_id":1257,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le N\u00e9oplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le N\u00e9oplatonisme organis\u00e9 dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique \u00e0 Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969","main_title":{"title":"Le N\u00e9oplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le N\u00e9oplatonisme organis\u00e9 dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique \u00e0 Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969"},"abstract":"The book is a valuable resource for scholars and students of Neoplatonism, providing a comprehensive overview of the history and development of this important philosophical tradition. It is divided into three main sections. The first section focuses on the historical development of Neoplatonism, tracing its origins in the philosophy of Plato and its development through the works of Plotinus, Proclus, and other Neoplatonic thinkers. The second section explores the relationship between Neoplatonism and other philosophical traditions, such as Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism. The third section examines the influence of Neoplatonism on literature and Christianity. [introduction]","btype":4,"date":"1971","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3Ys5KdoaAlOHE6L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":23,"full_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1257,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1971]}

La fin de l'Acádemie, 1971
By: Cameron, Alan, Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)
Title La fin de l'Acádemie
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1971
Published in Le Néoplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le Néoplatonisme organisé dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique à Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969
Pages 281-290
Categories no categories
Author(s) Cameron, Alan
Editor(s) Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)
Avec la mort de Proclus en 485, l’Académie tomba dans un déclin rapide. Trois générations durant, les meilleurs philosophes avaient été formés à Athènes par Plutarque, Syrianus et Proclus. Au contraire, les meilleurs philosophes de la génération suivante, Asclépius, Damascius, Eutocius, Olympiodore, Philopon et Simplicius, furent tous élèves d’Ammonius à Alexandrie. Ammonius lui-même avait été élève de Proclus. Nous connaissons les noms de tous les successeurs de Proclus à Athènes, mais ils ne sont guère pour nous que des noms. Même Damascius, qui était scolarque en l’année fatidique de 529, admet que la philosophie à Athènes n’était jamais tombée aussi bas que juste avant son accession à la chaire. Tout cela est hors de conteste. Pourtant, les savants modernes ont généralement considéré que ce déclin a continué sans interruption jusqu’en 529 et qu’en 529, lorsque Justinien a publié son illustre édit fermant l’Académie, elle était déjà sur son lit de mort. Autrement dit, ils considèrent que l’acte de Justinien fut plutôt de l’euthanasie qu’un assassinat. La dernière étude sur la fermeture de l’Académie admet sans discussion qu’en 529, la philosophie païenne d’Athènes avait déjà succombé sous les coups de la philosophie christianisée d’Alexandrie et de Gaza, que les étudiants, sauvés des griffes de l’impie Damascius, pouvaient désormais être guidés sur les chemins de la vérité par des chrétiens comme Philopon et Procope de Gaza. Hélas ! Cette image édifiante n’a rien à voir avec l’histoire. Il est douteux qu’il y ait jamais eu une école chrétienne de philosophie à Gaza. Énée et Procope étaient tous deux professeurs de rhétorique, et leurs plus fameux disciples furent aussi des rhéteurs (Épiphanius, Choricius). En tous cas, en 529, tous deux étaient morts. En ce qui concerne Alexandrie, contrairement à une opinion largement répandue, Philopon ne succéda pas à la chaire d’Ammonius. Pour des raisons que nous ne connaissons pas, il est resté, semble-t-il, toute sa vie grammaticus, professeur de littérature. Et vers la fin de sa vie, il se tourna de plus en plus de la philosophie vers la théologie — et vers l’hérésie. En outre, l’influence de la tradition scolaire était si forte, même dans le cas de philosophes chrétiens, que les écrits de Philopon ont exercé une influence étonnamment faible sur l’enseignement à Alexandrie. Olympiodore, qui enseignait encore à Alexandrie dans les années 560, était en effet païen, et ses successeurs, Élie, David, Étienne, bien que chrétiens, continuèrent à enseigner des doctrines comme l’éternité du monde et la divinité des corps célestes, qui avaient été déjà depuis longtemps réfutées par Philopon. Nous ne découvrons certainement pas ce qui est quelquefois évoqué en termes grandiloquents comme une synthèse de l’aristotélisme et du christianisme. Dès lors, il ne saurait être question de la vitalité supérieure d’une philosophie chrétienne écrasant les faibles survivants du paganisme sur leur propre terrain. De fait, si l’on compare le travail qui se fait à Athènes et à Alexandrie dans la première moitié du VIe siècle — en négligeant la production des dernières années de Philopon, comme étrangère à la tradition universitaire proprement dite —, il est clair que Damascius et Simplicius surpassent de beaucoup leurs rivaux alexandrins. Quant à la réputation de Damascius comme professeur (et la compétence scientifique a autant d’importance que l’habileté pédagogique), elle est établie par la liste de ses élèves en 529, qui comprenait des philosophes originaires de Cilicie, de Phrygie, de Lydie, de Phénicie et de Gaza : un véritable recrutement international. Assez étrangement, on a voulu tirer argument du caractère international de l’école de Damascius pour prouver la décadence de l’Académie. Athènes elle-même, dit-on, ne pouvait plus produire des Athéniens pour cultiver l’héritage de Platon. C’est ignorer le caractère international de la vie universitaire à la fin de l’Antiquité, caractère bien mis en évidence par la Vie d’Isidore écrite par Damascius et par Eunape dans les Vies des sophistes. En cet âge d’or de la rhétorique que fut le IVe siècle, à Athènes, les grands noms étaient Julien de Cappadoce, Himérius de Bithynie, Prohairesius d’Arménie. À peu près aucun Athénien parmi eux. Proclus lui-même était lycien, Syrianus, alexandrin. C’est plutôt un signe de la santé de ses institutions qu’Athènes pût encore attirer des étrangers de valeur ! Je voudrais suggérer, en effet, que bien loin que ce fût l’Académie qui fût sur son lit de mort en 529, c’était l’école d’Alexandrie qui était en déclin après la mort d’Ammonius, alors que l’Académie reprenait vie. Les successeurs d’Ammonius à Alexandrie furent Eutocius le mathématicien et Olympiodore, philosophes, ni l’un ni l’autre de grande envergure. Tandis que vers 529, l’énergique et habile Damascius avait repris en main l’Académie et s’était entouré d’une équipe de disciples dévoués — dévoués, car nous savons qu’ils le suivirent en Perse après la fermeture de l’Académie. Une illustration frappante de ce changement de relation entre Athènes et Alexandrie est le fait que, alors que dans ses premiers commentaires Olympiodore dépendait essentiellement d’Ammonius, dans ses dernières œuvres, il s’appuie de plus en plus sur Damascius. Nous saisissons, là encore, Alexandrie se tournant vers Athènes. Il se peut que Justinien n’ait pas fermé l’Académie par mépris, parce qu’elle était moribonde, mais — et c’est une raison plus naturelle et plus plausible — par crainte, parce qu’elle reprenait vie. [introduction p. 281-283]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1258","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1258,"authors_free":[{"id":1837,"entry_id":1258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2334,"entry_id":1258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":23,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime","free_first_name":"Pierre-Maxime","free_last_name":"Schuhl","norm_person":{"id":23,"first_name":"Pierre-Maxime","last_name":"Schuhl","full_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117559718X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2335,"entry_id":1258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La fin de l'Ac\u00e1demie","main_title":{"title":"La fin de l'Ac\u00e1demie"},"abstract":"Avec la mort de Proclus en 485, l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie tomba dans un d\u00e9clin rapide. Trois g\u00e9n\u00e9rations durant, les meilleurs philosophes avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 form\u00e9s \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes par Plutarque, Syrianus et Proclus. Au contraire, les meilleurs philosophes de la g\u00e9n\u00e9ration suivante, Ascl\u00e9pius, Damascius, Eutocius, Olympiodore, Philopon et Simplicius, furent tous \u00e9l\u00e8ves d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie. Ammonius lui-m\u00eame avait \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9l\u00e8ve de Proclus.\r\n\r\nNous connaissons les noms de tous les successeurs de Proclus \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes, mais ils ne sont gu\u00e8re pour nous que des noms. M\u00eame Damascius, qui \u00e9tait scolarque en l\u2019ann\u00e9e fatidique de 529, admet que la philosophie \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes n\u2019\u00e9tait jamais tomb\u00e9e aussi bas que juste avant son accession \u00e0 la chaire.\r\n\r\nTout cela est hors de conteste. Pourtant, les savants modernes ont g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que ce d\u00e9clin a continu\u00e9 sans interruption jusqu\u2019en 529 et qu\u2019en 529, lorsque Justinien a publi\u00e9 son illustre \u00e9dit fermant l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie, elle \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 sur son lit de mort. Autrement dit, ils consid\u00e8rent que l\u2019acte de Justinien fut plut\u00f4t de l\u2019euthanasie qu\u2019un assassinat.\r\n\r\nLa derni\u00e8re \u00e9tude sur la fermeture de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie admet sans discussion qu\u2019en 529, la philosophie pa\u00efenne d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 succomb\u00e9 sous les coups de la philosophie christianis\u00e9e d\u2019Alexandrie et de Gaza, que les \u00e9tudiants, sauv\u00e9s des griffes de l\u2019impie Damascius, pouvaient d\u00e9sormais \u00eatre guid\u00e9s sur les chemins de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 par des chr\u00e9tiens comme Philopon et Procope de Gaza. H\u00e9las ! Cette image \u00e9difiante n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec l\u2019histoire.\r\n\r\nIl est douteux qu\u2019il y ait jamais eu une \u00e9cole chr\u00e9tienne de philosophie \u00e0 Gaza. \u00c9n\u00e9e et Procope \u00e9taient tous deux professeurs de rh\u00e9torique, et leurs plus fameux disciples furent aussi des rh\u00e9teurs (\u00c9piphanius, Choricius). En tous cas, en 529, tous deux \u00e9taient morts.\r\n\r\nEn ce qui concerne Alexandrie, contrairement \u00e0 une opinion largement r\u00e9pandue, Philopon ne succ\u00e9da pas \u00e0 la chaire d\u2019Ammonius. Pour des raisons que nous ne connaissons pas, il est rest\u00e9, semble-t-il, toute sa vie grammaticus, professeur de litt\u00e9rature. Et vers la fin de sa vie, il se tourna de plus en plus de la philosophie vers la th\u00e9ologie \u2014 et vers l\u2019h\u00e9r\u00e9sie.\r\n\r\nEn outre, l\u2019influence de la tradition scolaire \u00e9tait si forte, m\u00eame dans le cas de philosophes chr\u00e9tiens, que les \u00e9crits de Philopon ont exerc\u00e9 une influence \u00e9tonnamment faible sur l\u2019enseignement \u00e0 Alexandrie. Olympiodore, qui enseignait encore \u00e0 Alexandrie dans les ann\u00e9es 560, \u00e9tait en effet pa\u00efen, et ses successeurs, \u00c9lie, David, \u00c9tienne, bien que chr\u00e9tiens, continu\u00e8rent \u00e0 enseigner des doctrines comme l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du monde et la divinit\u00e9 des corps c\u00e9lestes, qui avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9j\u00e0 depuis longtemps r\u00e9fut\u00e9es par Philopon.\r\n\r\nNous ne d\u00e9couvrons certainement pas ce qui est quelquefois \u00e9voqu\u00e9 en termes grandiloquents comme une synth\u00e8se de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme et du christianisme.\r\n\r\nD\u00e8s lors, il ne saurait \u00eatre question de la vitalit\u00e9 sup\u00e9rieure d\u2019une philosophie chr\u00e9tienne \u00e9crasant les faibles survivants du paganisme sur leur propre terrain. De fait, si l\u2019on compare le travail qui se fait \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes et \u00e0 Alexandrie dans la premi\u00e8re moiti\u00e9 du VIe si\u00e8cle \u2014 en n\u00e9gligeant la production des derni\u00e8res ann\u00e9es de Philopon, comme \u00e9trang\u00e8re \u00e0 la tradition universitaire proprement dite \u2014, il est clair que Damascius et Simplicius surpassent de beaucoup leurs rivaux alexandrins.\r\n\r\nQuant \u00e0 la r\u00e9putation de Damascius comme professeur (et la comp\u00e9tence scientifique a autant d\u2019importance que l\u2019habilet\u00e9 p\u00e9dagogique), elle est \u00e9tablie par la liste de ses \u00e9l\u00e8ves en 529, qui comprenait des philosophes originaires de Cilicie, de Phrygie, de Lydie, de Ph\u00e9nicie et de Gaza : un v\u00e9ritable recrutement international.\r\n\r\nAssez \u00e9trangement, on a voulu tirer argument du caract\u00e8re international de l\u2019\u00e9cole de Damascius pour prouver la d\u00e9cadence de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie. Ath\u00e8nes elle-m\u00eame, dit-on, ne pouvait plus produire des Ath\u00e9niens pour cultiver l\u2019h\u00e9ritage de Platon. C\u2019est ignorer le caract\u00e8re international de la vie universitaire \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, caract\u00e8re bien mis en \u00e9vidence par la Vie d\u2019Isidore \u00e9crite par Damascius et par Eunape dans les Vies des sophistes.\r\n\r\nEn cet \u00e2ge d\u2019or de la rh\u00e9torique que fut le IVe si\u00e8cle, \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes, les grands noms \u00e9taient Julien de Cappadoce, Him\u00e9rius de Bithynie, Prohairesius d\u2019Arm\u00e9nie. \u00c0 peu pr\u00e8s aucun Ath\u00e9nien parmi eux. Proclus lui-m\u00eame \u00e9tait lycien, Syrianus, alexandrin. C\u2019est plut\u00f4t un signe de la sant\u00e9 de ses institutions qu\u2019Ath\u00e8nes p\u00fbt encore attirer des \u00e9trangers de valeur !\r\n\r\nJe voudrais sugg\u00e9rer, en effet, que bien loin que ce f\u00fbt l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie qui f\u00fbt sur son lit de mort en 529, c\u2019\u00e9tait l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Alexandrie qui \u00e9tait en d\u00e9clin apr\u00e8s la mort d\u2019Ammonius, alors que l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie reprenait vie.\r\n\r\nLes successeurs d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie furent Eutocius le math\u00e9maticien et Olympiodore, philosophes, ni l\u2019un ni l\u2019autre de grande envergure. Tandis que vers 529, l\u2019\u00e9nergique et habile Damascius avait repris en main l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie et s\u2019\u00e9tait entour\u00e9 d\u2019une \u00e9quipe de disciples d\u00e9vou\u00e9s \u2014 d\u00e9vou\u00e9s, car nous savons qu\u2019ils le suivirent en Perse apr\u00e8s la fermeture de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie.\r\n\r\nUne illustration frappante de ce changement de relation entre Ath\u00e8nes et Alexandrie est le fait que, alors que dans ses premiers commentaires Olympiodore d\u00e9pendait essentiellement d\u2019Ammonius, dans ses derni\u00e8res \u0153uvres, il s\u2019appuie de plus en plus sur Damascius. Nous saisissons, l\u00e0 encore, Alexandrie se tournant vers Ath\u00e8nes.\r\n\r\nIl se peut que Justinien n\u2019ait pas ferm\u00e9 l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie par m\u00e9pris, parce qu\u2019elle \u00e9tait moribonde, mais \u2014 et c\u2019est une raison plus naturelle et plus plausible \u2014 par crainte, parce qu\u2019elle reprenait vie. [introduction p. 281-283]","btype":2,"date":"1971","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WEx2IgLff0lYEzl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":20,"full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":23,"full_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1258,"section_of":1257,"pages":"281-290","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1257,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Le N\u00e9oplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le N\u00e9oplatonisme organis\u00e9 dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique \u00e0 Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Schuhl_Hadot1971","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1971","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The book is a valuable resource for scholars and students of Neoplatonism, providing a comprehensive overview of the history and development of this important philosophical tradition. It is divided into three main sections. The first section focuses on the historical development of Neoplatonism, tracing its origins in the philosophy of Plato and its development through the works of Plotinus, Proclus, and other Neoplatonic thinkers. The second section explores the relationship between Neoplatonism and other philosophical traditions, such as Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism. The third section examines the influence of Neoplatonism on literature and Christianity. [introduction]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3Ys5KdoaAlOHE6L","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1257,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1971]}

The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined, 1971
By: Solmsen, Friedrich
Title The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined
Type Article
Language English
Date 1971
Journal Phronesis
Volume 16
Issue 2
Pages 116-141
Categories no categories
Author(s) Solmsen, Friedrich
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This paper makes no attempt to compete with the brilliant studies through which, in the last thirty years, several scholars have advanced our understanding of the evidence for Zeno of Elea, and in particular of the verbatim preserved fragments. In fact, my intention is not to replace theories with other theories but to create doubt about matters that, for some time, have been taken for granted, and to change confident assumptions into hypotheses that would tolerate others alongside them. Accounts of Zeno's philosophy generally take as their starting point some well-known statements at the beginning of Plato's Parmenides. Given the paucity of reports bearing on his work as a whole, the information here vouchsafed about its content and purpose must seem priceless. It also seems authoritative, the idea of examining it critically almost sacrilegious. Zeno, we read here, wrote against those who ridiculed the thesis of his master Parmenides that "all is one." The opponents tried to discredit this thesis by pointing out contradictions and "ridiculous" consequences resulting from the Parmenidean "One." In return, Zeno took the adversaries' position that "there are many" as the basis for his reasoning, deducing from it, in each of his arguments, contradictions and other results even more "ridiculous" than what the opponents had found in Parmenides' theory. It is easy to see why this testimony is so irresistible. Plato himself distinguishes between what is certain and what allows doubt and more than one explanation. Doubt is possible about certain accidental aspects (tôn symbebêkotôn ti, Zeno says, 128c5 ff.), i.e., whether the ultimate convergence of the two treatises was meant to be obvious or to be concealed from the reader, and also whether Zeno was anxious to build up a philosophical stature for himself or merely to help Parmenides against the detractors. Yet, precisely because doubt is allowed on such items of secondary importance, the far more important statements concerning the subject matter, the method, and the objectives of Zeno's treatise seem immune to attack. Scholars writing on Zeno have usually accepted Plato's testimony as a matter of course or with the most perfunctory justification. A few have given reasons why the testimony deserves confidence, and no reason could be more attractive than the sensitive comments of Hermann Fränkel about Plato as being, by his own individuality and temperament, exceptionally qualified to appreciate the peculiar, rather wanton humor that Fränkel has found lurking in Zeno's sallies. I should be loath to disagree with this argument, even if it did not form part of what Gregory Vlastos has justly called "easily the most important philological monograph published on the subject in several decades." Still, I am not the first to question the element of wantonness and trickery in Zeno's proofs, and even if it were granted, one might wonder whether Plato's own humor is not normally more gentle and urbane (asteion)—the exuberance of the "youthful" Protagoras being an exception—and whether even a congenial sense of humor would guarantee the correct understanding of a philosophical endeavor. But it is perhaps more profitable to develop Fränkel's doubts "as to how much Plato, or his readers for that matter, would be interested in problems of mere historicity." For these doubts apply even farther than Fränkel may be inclined to think. Would Plato really wish to make sure that his readers had a correct knowledge of what Zeno's treatise intended and achieved? Had he carefully and with something approaching philological accuracy worked his way through all the ὑποθέσεις in the treatise and found out to his satisfaction what purpose they served? Does he now, to communicate this discovery to the readers, use the dramatic device of making Socrates ask whether his interpretation is correct and Zeno confirm that in substance it is? Why, anyhow, must this be more, or much more, than a dramatic device—especially if the device has a bearing on the later developments in the dialogue? [introduction p. 116-118]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1016","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1016,"authors_free":[{"id":1532,"entry_id":1016,"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":"The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined","main_title":{"title":"The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined"},"abstract":"This paper makes no attempt to compete with the brilliant studies through which, in the last thirty years, several scholars have advanced our understanding of the evidence for Zeno of Elea, and in particular of the verbatim preserved fragments. In fact, my intention is not to replace theories with other theories but to create doubt about matters that, for some time, have been taken for granted, and to change confident assumptions into hypotheses that would tolerate others alongside them.\r\nAccounts of Zeno's philosophy generally take as their starting point some well-known statements at the beginning of Plato's Parmenides. Given the paucity of reports bearing on his work as a whole, the information here vouchsafed about its content and purpose must seem priceless. It also seems authoritative, the idea of examining it critically almost sacrilegious. Zeno, we read here, wrote against those who ridiculed the thesis of his master Parmenides that \"all is one.\" The opponents tried to discredit this thesis by pointing out contradictions and \"ridiculous\" consequences resulting from the Parmenidean \"One.\" In return, Zeno took the adversaries' position that \"there are many\" as the basis for his reasoning, deducing from it, in each of his arguments, contradictions and other results even more \"ridiculous\" than what the opponents had found in Parmenides' theory.\r\nIt is easy to see why this testimony is so irresistible. Plato himself distinguishes between what is certain and what allows doubt and more than one explanation. Doubt is possible about certain accidental aspects (t\u00f4n symbeb\u00eakot\u00f4n ti, Zeno says, 128c5 ff.), i.e., whether the ultimate convergence of the two treatises was meant to be obvious or to be concealed from the reader, and also whether Zeno was anxious to build up a philosophical stature for himself or merely to help Parmenides against the detractors. Yet, precisely because doubt is allowed on such items of secondary importance, the far more important statements concerning the subject matter, the method, and the objectives of Zeno's treatise seem immune to attack.\r\nScholars writing on Zeno have usually accepted Plato's testimony as a matter of course or with the most perfunctory justification. A few have given reasons why the testimony deserves confidence, and no reason could be more attractive than the sensitive comments of Hermann Fr\u00e4nkel about Plato as being, by his own individuality and temperament, exceptionally qualified to appreciate the peculiar, rather wanton humor that Fr\u00e4nkel has found lurking in Zeno's sallies. I should be loath to disagree with this argument, even if it did not form part of what Gregory Vlastos has justly called \"easily the most important philological monograph published on the subject in several decades.\" Still, I am not the first to question the element of wantonness and trickery in Zeno's proofs, and even if it were granted, one might wonder whether Plato's own humor is not normally more gentle and urbane (asteion)\u2014the exuberance of the \"youthful\" Protagoras being an exception\u2014and whether even a congenial sense of humor would guarantee the correct understanding of a philosophical endeavor.\r\nBut it is perhaps more profitable to develop Fr\u00e4nkel's doubts \"as to how much Plato, or his readers for that matter, would be interested in problems of mere historicity.\" For these doubts apply even farther than Fr\u00e4nkel may be inclined to think. Would Plato really wish to make sure that his readers had a correct knowledge of what Zeno's treatise intended and achieved? Had he carefully and with something approaching philological accuracy worked his way through all the \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in the treatise and found out to his satisfaction what purpose they served? Does he now, to communicate this discovery to the readers, use the dramatic device of making Socrates ask whether his interpretation is correct and Zeno confirm that in substance it is? Why, anyhow, must this be more, or much more, than a dramatic device\u2014especially if the device has a bearing on the later developments in the dialogue? [introduction p. 116-118]","btype":3,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6pPpfWHeO2IY3ri","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":316,"full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1016,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"16","issue":"2","pages":"116-141"}},"sort":[1971]}

ΟΜΟΥ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΗΝ, 1971
By: Rösler, Wolfgang
Title ΟΜΟΥ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΗΝ
Type Article
Language German
Date 1971
Journal Hermes
Volume 99
Issue 2
Pages 246-248
Categories no categories
Author(s) Rösler, Wolfgang
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Wie alle umfangreicheren Fragmente der Abhandlung Περί φύσεως des Anaxagoras ist auch Fragment 1 (VS 59 B 1) durch den Kommentar des Simplikios zur aristotelischen Physik überliefert. Simplikios hatte die Möglichkeit, ein Exemplar der Schrift des ionischen Philosophen zu benutzen. In seiner ganzen Länge erscheint das Fragment, dessen Stellung am Anfang des Buches ausdrücklich bezeugt ist, nur einmal (155, 26); daneben gibt es weitere Passagen, in denen lediglich der einleitende Satz bzw. dessen Beginn zitiert wird. Ein Überblick zeigt, dass zwischen den einzelnen Zitaten Unterschiede in der Wortstellung bestehen. Deshalb soll im Folgenden der Versuch unternommen werden, die ursprüngliche Anordnung in der Textvorlage des Simplikios zu rekonstruieren. Bekanntlich wird der Anfang der Schrift des Anaxagoras seit Platon in der griechischen Literatur häufig zitiert. Untersucht man jedoch die entsprechenden Stellen – mit Ausnahme derer bei Simplikios – auf ihren Wert als Zeugen für den genauen Wortlaut des Anaxagoras-Textes, so zeigt sich ihre Bedeutungslosigkeit rasch. Platon und Aristoteles zitieren nicht direkt aus dem Buch des Anaxagoras, was auch ihrer sonst geübten Praxis bei der Wiedergabe fremder Meinungen widerspräche, sondern paraphrasieren frei nach dem Gedächtnis. Die beiden Zitate bei Platon bieten zwar eine einheitliche Wortstellung (ὁμοῦ πάντα χρήματα), doch fehlt jeweils ἦν. In einem Fall (Gorg. 465d) sind die Worte des Anaxagoras sogar völlig in die betreffende Satzkonstruktion eingegangen. Letzteres trifft auch auf viele der Zitate bei Aristoteles zu, die im Übrigen Unterschiede in der Wortfolge zeigen und häufig unvollständig sind. Wie bei Platon umfassen auch die Zitate bei Aristoteles lediglich den unmittelbaren Beginn des Einleitungssatzes. Nur einmal (Met. 1056b 29) erscheint auch der folgende Satzabschnitt (bis πλῆθος καὶ σμικρότης, wobei diese beiden Substantive bei Aristoteles allerdings im Dativ stehen). Auch dieses Zitat besteht jedoch nur aus insgesamt neun Wörtern und konnte daher leicht aus dem Gedächtnis niedergeschrieben werden. Noch geringeren Quellenwert haben die Zitate bei späteren Autoren, da diese ihre Kenntnis Platon, Aristoteles oder einer ihrerseits aus zweiter Hand schöpfenden doxographischen Vorlage verdankten oder die Einleitungsworte des Anaxagoras, die im Laufe der Zeit regelrecht zur παροιμία wurden, überhaupt nur vom Hörensagen kannten. In der Wortstellung treten fast alle denkbaren Variationen auf, kein Zitat reicht über den unmittelbaren Anfang der Schrift Περί φύσεως hinaus. Als Grundlage der Rekonstruktion bleiben somit nur die Passagen bei Simplikios. Wie eingangs bemerkt, wird Fragment 1 im Physik-Kommentar nur an einer Stelle (155, 26) in seiner Gesamtheit zitiert, während die übrigen Zitate nur den Anfang wiedergeben; im günstigsten Fall reichen sie (wie schon bei Aristoteles) bis σμικρότης. Nun bietet 155, 26 eine Wortstellung, die nur bei Simplikios und im Physik-Kommentar nur hier begegnet, nämlich ὁμοῦ χρήματα πάντα ἦν. Angesichts der Isoliertheit dieser Version trugen H. Diels und W. Kranz, die Herausgeber der Vorsokratiker-Fragmente, keine Bedenken, sich an dieser Stelle über die Überlieferung hinwegzusetzen und für χρήματα πάντα die seit Platon häufig vorkommende Wortfolge πάντα χρήματα in den Text aufzunehmen, die im Übrigen auch in den Kurzzitaten bei Simplikios die Regel ist. Dennoch ist nicht daran zu zweifeln, dass der Anfang der Schrift des Anaxagoras gerade in 155, 26 richtig wiedergegeben ist. Denn nur hier im Physik-Kommentar zitiert Simplikios nachweislich unmittelbar aus seinem Anaxagoras-Text, den er für die übrigen Zitate ihrer Kürze wegen nicht eigens einsah. Dass er in diesen Fällen die geläufige, freilich unkorrekte Wortfolge übernahm, kann nicht verwundern, zumal sie auch in der von ihm kommentierten Schrift des Aristoteles erschien. Diese Auswertung der Zitate von Fragment 1 im Physik-Kommentar des Simplikios wird dadurch gesichert, dass in einer anderen Abhandlung desselben Autors, im Kommentar zu Aristoteles' De caelo (608, 21), ein zweites Mal der Anfang der Schrift Περί φύσεως in der Version ὁμοῦ χρήματα πάντα ἦν zitiert wird. Entscheidend ist, dass es sich auch in diesem Fall um ein so langes Zitat handelt (bis σμικρότης), dass Simplikios dafür eigens im Anaxagoras-Text nachschlagen musste. [the entire text]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"774","_score":null,"_source":{"id":774,"authors_free":[{"id":1138,"entry_id":774,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":383,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"R\u00f6sler, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"R\u00f6sler","norm_person":{"id":383,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"R\u00f6sler","full_name":"R\u00f6sler, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133199266","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u039f\u039c\u039f\u03a5 \u03a7\u03a1\u0397\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u03a0\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u0397\u039d","main_title":{"title":"\u039f\u039c\u039f\u03a5 \u03a7\u03a1\u0397\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u03a0\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u0397\u039d"},"abstract":"Wie alle umfangreicheren Fragmente der Abhandlung \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 des Anaxagoras ist auch Fragment 1 (VS 59 B 1) durch den Kommentar des Simplikios zur aristotelischen Physik \u00fcberliefert. Simplikios hatte die M\u00f6glichkeit, ein Exemplar der Schrift des ionischen Philosophen zu benutzen. In seiner ganzen L\u00e4nge erscheint das Fragment, dessen Stellung am Anfang des Buches ausdr\u00fccklich bezeugt ist, nur einmal (155, 26); daneben gibt es weitere Passagen, in denen lediglich der einleitende Satz bzw. dessen Beginn zitiert wird.\r\n\r\nEin \u00dcberblick zeigt, dass zwischen den einzelnen Zitaten Unterschiede in der Wortstellung bestehen. Deshalb soll im Folgenden der Versuch unternommen werden, die urspr\u00fcngliche Anordnung in der Textvorlage des Simplikios zu rekonstruieren.\r\n\r\nBekanntlich wird der Anfang der Schrift des Anaxagoras seit Platon in der griechischen Literatur h\u00e4ufig zitiert. Untersucht man jedoch die entsprechenden Stellen \u2013 mit Ausnahme derer bei Simplikios \u2013 auf ihren Wert als Zeugen f\u00fcr den genauen Wortlaut des Anaxagoras-Textes, so zeigt sich ihre Bedeutungslosigkeit rasch. Platon und Aristoteles zitieren nicht direkt aus dem Buch des Anaxagoras, was auch ihrer sonst ge\u00fcbten Praxis bei der Wiedergabe fremder Meinungen widerspr\u00e4che, sondern paraphrasieren frei nach dem Ged\u00e4chtnis.\r\n\r\nDie beiden Zitate bei Platon bieten zwar eine einheitliche Wortstellung (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1), doch fehlt jeweils \u1f26\u03bd. In einem Fall (Gorg. 465d) sind die Worte des Anaxagoras sogar v\u00f6llig in die betreffende Satzkonstruktion eingegangen. Letzteres trifft auch auf viele der Zitate bei Aristoteles zu, die im \u00dcbrigen Unterschiede in der Wortfolge zeigen und h\u00e4ufig unvollst\u00e4ndig sind. Wie bei Platon umfassen auch die Zitate bei Aristoteles lediglich den unmittelbaren Beginn des Einleitungssatzes. Nur einmal (Met. 1056b 29) erscheint auch der folgende Satzabschnitt (bis \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, wobei diese beiden Substantive bei Aristoteles allerdings im Dativ stehen). Auch dieses Zitat besteht jedoch nur aus insgesamt neun W\u00f6rtern und konnte daher leicht aus dem Ged\u00e4chtnis niedergeschrieben werden.\r\n\r\nNoch geringeren Quellenwert haben die Zitate bei sp\u00e4teren Autoren, da diese ihre Kenntnis Platon, Aristoteles oder einer ihrerseits aus zweiter Hand sch\u00f6pfenden doxographischen Vorlage verdankten oder die Einleitungsworte des Anaxagoras, die im Laufe der Zeit regelrecht zur \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 wurden, \u00fcberhaupt nur vom H\u00f6rensagen kannten. In der Wortstellung treten fast alle denkbaren Variationen auf, kein Zitat reicht \u00fcber den unmittelbaren Anfang der Schrift \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 hinaus.\r\n\r\nAls Grundlage der Rekonstruktion bleiben somit nur die Passagen bei Simplikios. Wie eingangs bemerkt, wird Fragment 1 im Physik-Kommentar nur an einer Stelle (155, 26) in seiner Gesamtheit zitiert, w\u00e4hrend die \u00fcbrigen Zitate nur den Anfang wiedergeben; im g\u00fcnstigsten Fall reichen sie (wie schon bei Aristoteles) bis \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. Nun bietet 155, 26 eine Wortstellung, die nur bei Simplikios und im Physik-Kommentar nur hier begegnet, n\u00e4mlich \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd.\r\n\r\nAngesichts der Isoliertheit dieser Version trugen H. Diels und W. Kranz, die Herausgeber der Vorsokratiker-Fragmente, keine Bedenken, sich an dieser Stelle \u00fcber die \u00dcberlieferung hinwegzusetzen und f\u00fcr \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 die seit Platon h\u00e4ufig vorkommende Wortfolge \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 in den Text aufzunehmen, die im \u00dcbrigen auch in den Kurzzitaten bei Simplikios die Regel ist. Dennoch ist nicht daran zu zweifeln, dass der Anfang der Schrift des Anaxagoras gerade in 155, 26 richtig wiedergegeben ist.\r\n\r\nDenn nur hier im Physik-Kommentar zitiert Simplikios nachweislich unmittelbar aus seinem Anaxagoras-Text, den er f\u00fcr die \u00fcbrigen Zitate ihrer K\u00fcrze wegen nicht eigens einsah. Dass er in diesen F\u00e4llen die gel\u00e4ufige, freilich unkorrekte Wortfolge \u00fcbernahm, kann nicht verwundern, zumal sie auch in der von ihm kommentierten Schrift des Aristoteles erschien.\r\n\r\nDiese Auswertung der Zitate von Fragment 1 im Physik-Kommentar des Simplikios wird dadurch gesichert, dass in einer anderen Abhandlung desselben Autors, im Kommentar zu Aristoteles' De caelo (608, 21), ein zweites Mal der Anfang der Schrift \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 in der Version \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd zitiert wird. Entscheidend ist, dass es sich auch in diesem Fall um ein so langes Zitat handelt (bis \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), dass Simplikios daf\u00fcr eigens im Anaxagoras-Text nachschlagen musste. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1971","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JNAa63ZtXiLxTdb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":383,"full_name":"R\u00f6sler, Wolfgang","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":774,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"99","issue":"2","pages":"246-248"}},"sort":[1971]}

Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5, 1971
By: Whittaker, John H.
Title Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1971
Published in God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy
Pages 16-32
Categories no categories
Author(s) Whittaker, John H.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
I would conclude that no knowledge of the teaching of the historical Parmenides can be safely derived from the versions of fr. 8, 5 which have survived. One can, however, assert with complete conviction, as was shown at the outset, that the doctrine of non-durational eternity, which Neoplatonists associated with both versions of the line, was not taught by the historical Parmenides. [conclusion p. 24]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"439","_score":null,"_source":{"id":439,"authors_free":[{"id":589,"entry_id":439,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":411,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Whittaker, John H.","free_first_name":"John H.","free_last_name":"Whittaker","norm_person":{"id":411,"first_name":"John H.","last_name":"Whittaker","full_name":"Whittaker, John H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124441203","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5"},"abstract":"I would conclude that no knowledge of the teaching of the historical \r\nParmenides can be safely derived from the versions of fr. 8, 5 which \r\nhave survived. One can, however, assert with complete conviction, as \r\nwas shown at the outset, that the doctrine of non-durational eternity, \r\nwhich Neoplatonists associated with both versions of the line, was not \r\ntaught by the historical Parmenides. [conclusion p. 24]","btype":2,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/otytaZVpHsVfMmh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":411,"full_name":"Whittaker, John H.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":439,"section_of":144,"pages":"16-32","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":144,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Whittaker1971b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1971","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1971","abstract":"Es geht um die im Platonismus entwickelte Vorstellung einer Gottheit eigenen\r\nzeitlosen, zeit3berlegenen Ewigkeit, die von Plotin aus (Enneaden III 7) die abend-\r\nlindische Theologie und Mystik stark beeinfluf3t hat. Zugrunde liegt Platons\r\nSpekulation 3ber Aion und Chronos, Timaios 73 c-38 c; ausformuliert ist die\r\nThese vom ewigen Jetzt fur unsere Kenntnis erstmals im mittleren Platonismus\r\n(Plutarch, De E ap. Delph. 393 A-C). Doch hat sie der Neuplatonismus - sicher-\r\nlich zu Unrecht - bereits in ein beruhmtes Parmenides-Fragment (8, 5 D.-Kr., wo\r\nes vom Sein heift, dag ,alles jetzt zusammen ist\", nach U. Hoelscher) hinein-\r\ngelesen. Der Verf., der diese Oberlieferungsverhiltnisse klarend darlegt, unterzieht\r\ndas Fragment im ersten Teil seiner Arbeit einer scharfsinnigen, reich dokumen-\r\ntierten Analyse. Dabei wird die Ansicht begrundet, dai3 die Texte unserer spht-\r\nantiken Zeugen (Simplikios einerseits, die vier alexandrinischen Ausleger andrer-\r\nseits) nicht iber jeden Zweifel erhaben sind. Es k6nnte sein, daf3 bei Simplikios\r\n- dem die modernen Ausgaben zu folgen pflegen - eine neuplatonische Adaption\r\ndes parmenideischen Wortlauts vorliegt, so daf die uberlieferte Form von Parm.\r\n8, 5 fur die Ermittlung der Lehre des grof3enEleaten ausscheiden muf3te - ein fur\r\ndie Vorsokratikerforschung recht erhebliches Ergebnis. - In einer zweiten Unter-\r\nsuchung geht der Verf. dem gleichen Motiv (,Gottes ewiges Heute': der Leser der\r\naugustinischen Confessionen hat es aus dem grofartigen Lobpreis XI 13 in Erinne-\r\nrung) bei Philon von Alexandria nach, wobei sich ein belehrender Einblick in die\r\nplatonistisdhe Tradition ergibt (verwunderlich, daf3 Clemens von Alexandria nach\r\nMigne's Patrologie, Maximos von Tyros nach der alten Dibner'sdlen Ausgabe\r\nzitiert werden). Auch aristotelische und stoische Einflusse werden gepruft. W. stellt\r\nfest, daf3 die meisten Philonstellen, die man bisher im Sinn der neuplatonischen\r\nLehre von einer zeit\u00fcberlegenen Ewigkeit gedeutet hatte, anders zu erklaren\r\nsind; eine Ausnahme scheint in einer allegorischen Auslegung des Alten Testaments\r\n(zu Levit. 2, 14) vorzuliegen (de sacrif. 76). Es bleibt dabei, daf3 das weitreidiende\r\nThema in voller Klarheit erstmals in Plutarchs ob. gen. Dialog angesprochen wird;\r\ner hangt sicher mit dem seit Ende des 1. Jh. v. Chr. wieder rege gewordenen\r\nStudium des platonischen Timaios zusammen, welches in dem Kommentar des\r\nAlexandriners Eudoros, eines pythagoreisierenden Platonikers, moglicherweiseeine\r\nQuelle Plutarchs hervorgebracht hat (hier ware auf eine den Problemen des mitt-\r\nleren Platonismus gewidmete Arbeit H. Dbrrie's hinzuweisen gewesen, in: Les\r\nSourdes de Plotin, Entresiens sur L'Antiquite Classique, t. V, 1957 193 it).\" (Review, H. Strohm)","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gmCTvOKY6YxDRe4","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":144,"pubplace":"Oslo","publisher":"Universitetsforlaget","series":"Symbolae Osloenses","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1971]}

God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy, 1971
By: Whittaker, John H.
Title God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1971
Publication Place Oslo
Publisher Universitetsforlaget
Series Symbolae Osloenses
Volume 23
Categories no categories
Author(s) Whittaker, John H.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Es geht um die im Platonismus entwickelte Vorstellung einer Gottheit eigenen zeitlosen, zeit3berlegenen Ewigkeit, die von Plotin aus (Enneaden III 7) die abend- lindische Theologie und Mystik stark beeinfluf3t hat. Zugrunde liegt Platons Spekulation 3ber Aion und Chronos, Timaios 73 c-38 c; ausformuliert ist die These vom ewigen Jetzt fur unsere Kenntnis erstmals im mittleren Platonismus (Plutarch, De E ap. Delph. 393 A-C). Doch hat sie der Neuplatonismus - sicher- lich zu Unrecht - bereits in ein beruhmtes Parmenides-Fragment (8, 5 D.-Kr., wo es vom Sein heift, dag ,alles jetzt zusammen ist", nach U. Hoelscher) hinein- gelesen. Der Verf., der diese Oberlieferungsverhiltnisse klarend darlegt, unterzieht das Fragment im ersten Teil seiner Arbeit einer scharfsinnigen, reich dokumen- tierten Analyse. Dabei wird die Ansicht begrundet, dai3 die Texte unserer spht- antiken Zeugen (Simplikios einerseits, die vier alexandrinischen Ausleger andrer- seits) nicht iber jeden Zweifel erhaben sind. Es k6nnte sein, daf3 bei Simplikios - dem die modernen Ausgaben zu folgen pflegen - eine neuplatonische Adaption des parmenideischen Wortlauts vorliegt, so daf die uberlieferte Form von Parm. 8, 5 fur die Ermittlung der Lehre des grof3enEleaten ausscheiden muf3te - ein fur die Vorsokratikerforschung recht erhebliches Ergebnis. - In einer zweiten Unter- suchung geht der Verf. dem gleichen Motiv (,Gottes ewiges Heute': der Leser der augustinischen Confessionen hat es aus dem grofartigen Lobpreis XI 13 in Erinne- rung) bei Philon von Alexandria nach, wobei sich ein belehrender Einblick in die platonistisdhe Tradition ergibt (verwunderlich, daf3 Clemens von Alexandria nach Migne's Patrologie, Maximos von Tyros nach der alten Dibner'sdlen Ausgabe zitiert werden). Auch aristotelische und stoische Einflusse werden gepruft. W. stellt fest, daf3 die meisten Philonstellen, die man bisher im Sinn der neuplatonischen Lehre von einer zeitüberlegenen Ewigkeit gedeutet hatte, anders zu erklaren sind; eine Ausnahme scheint in einer allegorischen Auslegung des Alten Testaments (zu Levit. 2, 14) vorzuliegen (de sacrif. 76). Es bleibt dabei, daf3 das weitreidiende Thema in voller Klarheit erstmals in Plutarchs ob. gen. Dialog angesprochen wird; er hangt sicher mit dem seit Ende des 1. Jh. v. Chr. wieder rege gewordenen Studium des platonischen Timaios zusammen, welches in dem Kommentar des Alexandriners Eudoros, eines pythagoreisierenden Platonikers, moglicherweiseeine Quelle Plutarchs hervorgebracht hat (hier ware auf eine den Problemen des mitt- leren Platonismus gewidmete Arbeit H. Dbrrie's hinzuweisen gewesen, in: Les Sourdes de Plotin, Entresiens sur L'Antiquite Classique, t. V, 1957 193 it)." (Review, H. Strohm)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"144","_score":null,"_source":{"id":144,"authors_free":[{"id":182,"entry_id":144,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":411,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Whittaker, John H.","free_first_name":"John H.","free_last_name":"Whittaker","norm_person":{"id":411,"first_name":"John H.","last_name":"Whittaker","full_name":"Whittaker, John H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124441203","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy"},"abstract":"Es geht um die im Platonismus entwickelte Vorstellung einer Gottheit eigenen\r\nzeitlosen, zeit3berlegenen Ewigkeit, die von Plotin aus (Enneaden III 7) die abend-\r\nlindische Theologie und Mystik stark beeinfluf3t hat. Zugrunde liegt Platons\r\nSpekulation 3ber Aion und Chronos, Timaios 73 c-38 c; ausformuliert ist die\r\nThese vom ewigen Jetzt fur unsere Kenntnis erstmals im mittleren Platonismus\r\n(Plutarch, De E ap. Delph. 393 A-C). Doch hat sie der Neuplatonismus - sicher-\r\nlich zu Unrecht - bereits in ein beruhmtes Parmenides-Fragment (8, 5 D.-Kr., wo\r\nes vom Sein heift, dag ,alles jetzt zusammen ist\", nach U. Hoelscher) hinein-\r\ngelesen. Der Verf., der diese Oberlieferungsverhiltnisse klarend darlegt, unterzieht\r\ndas Fragment im ersten Teil seiner Arbeit einer scharfsinnigen, reich dokumen-\r\ntierten Analyse. Dabei wird die Ansicht begrundet, dai3 die Texte unserer spht-\r\nantiken Zeugen (Simplikios einerseits, die vier alexandrinischen Ausleger andrer-\r\nseits) nicht iber jeden Zweifel erhaben sind. Es k6nnte sein, daf3 bei Simplikios\r\n- dem die modernen Ausgaben zu folgen pflegen - eine neuplatonische Adaption\r\ndes parmenideischen Wortlauts vorliegt, so daf die uberlieferte Form von Parm.\r\n8, 5 fur die Ermittlung der Lehre des grof3enEleaten ausscheiden muf3te - ein fur\r\ndie Vorsokratikerforschung recht erhebliches Ergebnis. - In einer zweiten Unter-\r\nsuchung geht der Verf. dem gleichen Motiv (,Gottes ewiges Heute': der Leser der\r\naugustinischen Confessionen hat es aus dem grofartigen Lobpreis XI 13 in Erinne-\r\nrung) bei Philon von Alexandria nach, wobei sich ein belehrender Einblick in die\r\nplatonistisdhe Tradition ergibt (verwunderlich, daf3 Clemens von Alexandria nach\r\nMigne's Patrologie, Maximos von Tyros nach der alten Dibner'sdlen Ausgabe\r\nzitiert werden). Auch aristotelische und stoische Einflusse werden gepruft. W. stellt\r\nfest, daf3 die meisten Philonstellen, die man bisher im Sinn der neuplatonischen\r\nLehre von einer zeit\u00fcberlegenen Ewigkeit gedeutet hatte, anders zu erklaren\r\nsind; eine Ausnahme scheint in einer allegorischen Auslegung des Alten Testaments\r\n(zu Levit. 2, 14) vorzuliegen (de sacrif. 76). Es bleibt dabei, daf3 das weitreidiende\r\nThema in voller Klarheit erstmals in Plutarchs ob. gen. Dialog angesprochen wird;\r\ner hangt sicher mit dem seit Ende des 1. Jh. v. Chr. wieder rege gewordenen\r\nStudium des platonischen Timaios zusammen, welches in dem Kommentar des\r\nAlexandriners Eudoros, eines pythagoreisierenden Platonikers, moglicherweiseeine\r\nQuelle Plutarchs hervorgebracht hat (hier ware auf eine den Problemen des mitt-\r\nleren Platonismus gewidmete Arbeit H. Dbrrie's hinzuweisen gewesen, in: Les\r\nSourdes de Plotin, Entresiens sur L'Antiquite Classique, t. V, 1957 193 it).\" (Review, H. Strohm)","btype":1,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gmCTvOKY6YxDRe4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":411,"full_name":"Whittaker, John H.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":144,"pubplace":"Oslo","publisher":"Universitetsforlaget","series":"Symbolae Osloenses","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1971]}

Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. Édition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 1, 1971
By: Simplicius , Wilhelm von Moerbeke, Pattin, Adriaan (Ed.)
Title Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. Édition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 1
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1971
Publication Place Louvain
Publisher Publ. Universitaires
Series Corpus Latinum Commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum
Volume 5
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simplicius , Wilhelm von Moerbeke
Editor(s) Pattin, Adriaan
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"177","_score":null,"_source":{"id":177,"authors_free":[{"id":233,"entry_id":177,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2468,"entry_id":177,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":490,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilhelm von Moerbeke","free_first_name":"Wilhelm ","free_last_name":"Moerbeke, von","norm_person":{"id":490,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"von Moerbeke","full_name":"von Moerbeke, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118633007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2469,"entry_id":177,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":496,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pattin, Adriaan","free_first_name":"Adriaan","free_last_name":"Pattin","norm_person":{"id":496,"first_name":"Adriaan","last_name":"Pattin","full_name":"Pattin, Adriaan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1089166524","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. \u00c9dition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 1","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. \u00c9dition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 1"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1971","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/u7BTxg00aLdP0lX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":490,"full_name":"von Moerbeke, Wilhelm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":496,"full_name":"Pattin, Adriaan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":177,"pubplace":"Louvain","publisher":"Publ. Universitaires","series":"Corpus Latinum Commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1971]}

Fallgesetz und Massebegriff. Zwei wissenschaftshistorische Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Johannes Philoponus, 1971
By: Wolff, Michael
Title Fallgesetz und Massebegriff. Zwei wissenschaftshistorische Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Johannes Philoponus
Type Monograph
Language German
Date 1971
Publication Place Berlin
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Quellen und Studien zur Philosophie
Volume 2
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wolff, Michael
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In der 1970 gegründeten Reihe erscheinen Arbeiten, die philosophiehistorische Studien mit einem systematischen Ansatz oder systematische Studien mit philosophiehistorischen Rekonstruktionen verbinden. Neben deutschsprachigen werden auch englischsprachige Monographien veröffentlicht. Gründungsherausgeber sind: Erhard Scheibe (Herausgeber bis 1991), Günther Patzig (bis 1999) und Wolfgang Wieland (bis 2003). Von 1990 bis 2007 wurde die Reihe von Jürgen Mittelstraß mitherausgegeben. [official abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"186","_score":null,"_source":{"id":186,"authors_free":[{"id":242,"entry_id":186,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":364,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wolff, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Wolff","norm_person":{"id":364,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Wolff","full_name":"Wolff, Michael","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131523120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Fallgesetz und Massebegriff. Zwei wissenschaftshistorische Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Johannes Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Fallgesetz und Massebegriff. Zwei wissenschaftshistorische Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Johannes Philoponus"},"abstract":"In der 1970 gegr\u00fcndeten Reihe erscheinen Arbeiten, die philosophiehistorische Studien mit einem systematischen Ansatz oder systematische Studien mit philosophiehistorischen Rekonstruktionen verbinden. Neben deutschsprachigen werden auch englischsprachige Monographien ver\u00f6ffentlicht. Gr\u00fcndungsherausgeber sind: Erhard Scheibe (Herausgeber bis 1991), G\u00fcnther Patzig (bis 1999) und Wolfgang Wieland (bis 2003). Von 1990 bis 2007 wurde die Reihe von J\u00fcrgen Mittelstra\u00df mitherausgegeben. [official abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1971","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AtlPN4QA7mZzias","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":364,"full_name":"Wolff, Michael","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":186,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Quellen und Studien zur Philosophie","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1971]}

'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff., 1971
By: Hall, J.J
Title 'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff.
Type Article
Language English
Date 1971
Journal The Journal of Hellenic Studies
Volume 91
Pages 138-139
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hall, J.J
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Thus all that Simplicius is saying, on Eudemus’ authority, is that Anaximander ‘was the first to discuss’ the sizes and distances of ‘planets’, using the latter term to include sun and moon; and this agrees with what the doxographers tell us: Anaximander had views about the distances of sun and moon, and the size of the sun.11 A sceptic, like Dicks, may question this whole tradition; but it should not be claimed that what Simplicius says of Anaximander and planômena in 471.2-6 is incon­sistent with our other authorities. [conclusion, p. 139]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1342","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1342,"authors_free":[{"id":2000,"entry_id":1342,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":165,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hall, J.J","free_first_name":"J.J.","free_last_name":"Hall","norm_person":{"id":165,"first_name":"J.J","last_name":"Hall","full_name":"Hall, J. J","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff.","main_title":{"title":"'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff."},"abstract":"Thus all that Simplicius is saying, on Eudemus\u2019 \r\nauthority, is that Anaximander \u2018was the first to \r\ndiscuss\u2019 the sizes and distances of \u2018planets\u2019, using the latter term to include sun and moon; and this agrees with what the doxographers tell us: Anaximander had views about the distances of sun and moon, and the size of the sun.11 A sceptic, like Dicks, may question this whole tradition; but it should not be claimed that what Simplicius says of Anaximander and plan\u00f4mena in 471.2-6 is incon\u00adsistent with our other authorities. [conclusion, p. 139]","btype":3,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/K5sTJaihiZL0lG5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":165,"full_name":"Hall, J. J","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1342,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"91","issue":"","pages":"138-139"}},"sort":[1971]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
"Simplikios", 1975
By: Dörrie, Heinrich , Konrat Ziegler (Ed.)
Title "Simplikios"
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1975
Published in Der kleine Pauly, Band 5
Pages 205
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dörrie, Heinrich
Editor(s) Konrat Ziegler
Translator(s)
Simplikios (Σιμπλίκιος), Neuplatoniker, Schüler des Ammonios, Sohnes des Hermeias. Simplikios muss von Alexandria nach Athen übergesiedelt sein. Als das Schließungsedikt von 529 erging, war er Mitglied der Akademie. Mit anderen Akademikern versuchte er, im persischen Reich, vermutlich zu Ktesiphon am Hofe des Königs Chosroes I., eine neue Stätte für philosophische Forschung und Lehre zu begründen. Das schlug fehl; 533 kehrte Simplikios mit seinen Kollegen ins Römische Reich zurück, wo es ihm untersagt war, eine Lehrtätigkeit auszuüben.

Alle Schriften von Simplikios, die erhalten sind, wurden nach 533 verfasst. Er war der letzte Platoniker, der in seinen Schriften das Christentum angriff. Seine Werke sind durchweg Kommentare, allerdings ist kein Kommentar von ihm zu einem Dialog Platons bekannt; vermutlich erschien es ihm als zwecklos, mit den Kommentaren des Proklos in Wettstreit zu treten.

Verloren ist sein Hauptwerk, der Kommentar zu Aristoteles’ Metaphysik. In Handschriften erhalten, aber noch nicht ediert, sind ein Kommentar zu Hermogenes’ τέχνη und zu Iamblichos’ περί τής Πυθαγόρου αἱρέσεως. Erhalten und sämtlich in den Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca ediert sind folgende Kommentare:

    De caelo, ed. J. L. Heiberg, 1894 (CAG VII).
    Categoriae, ed. C. Kalbfleisch, 1907 (CAG VIII).
    Physica, ed. H. Diels, 1882, 1895 (CAG IX und X).
    De anima, ed. M. Hayduck, 1882 (CAG XI).

Das ungewöhnlichste Werk von Simplikios ist sein Kommentar zum Ἐγχειρίδιον des Epiktet. Die dringend notwendige Neuausgabe wird von Frau Dr. I. Hadot vorbereitet.

Viele Kommentare anderer Platoniker sind aus Vorlesungen für Anfänger hervorgegangen. Im Vergleich dazu stehen die Kommentare von Simplikios auf einem weit höheren Niveau. Ihm, der nicht mehr lehren durfte, ging es darum, für künftige Gelehrte zu schreiben. „Gerade seine nüchternere Weise macht ihn im Verein mit seiner großen Gelehrsamkeit zu einem höchst achtenswerten Kommentator.“ (K. Praechter).

In engem Zusammenhang damit steht, dass Simplikios vor allem im Kommentar zur Physik Zitate aus vorsokratischen Philosophen in beträchtlichem Umfang in seinen Text aufgenommen hat (Stellenverzeichnis bei Diels Vorsokratiker³, 638–640). Dass Empedokles und Parmenides für uns mehr sind als nur Namen, ist einzig Simplikios zu verdanken.

Die Beweisführung von Simplikios tendiert dahin, dass aus allen Philosophen die gleiche σοφία und der gleiche λόγος spricht wie aus Platon. Das gilt für die Vorsokratiker ebenso wie für Aristoteles: Wo dieser Platon widerspricht, handelt es sich nur um eine Diskrepanz in Worten. So wird seine riesige Arbeit zu einer imposanten Apologie der Lehre, dass alle Philosophen – selbstverständlich auch Epiktet – immer nur die eine, stets sich selbst gleiche, unwandelbare Wahrheit verkündet haben.

Außer dem RE-Artikel von K. Praechter gibt es keine zusammenfassende Würdigung von Simplikios. [the entire text]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1292","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1292,"authors_free":[{"id":1881,"entry_id":1292,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":69,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","free_first_name":"Heinrich ","free_last_name":"D\u00f6rrie","norm_person":{"id":69,"first_name":"Heinrich ","last_name":"D\u00f6rrie","full_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118526375","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2697,"entry_id":1292,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Konrat Ziegler","free_first_name":"Konrat","free_last_name":"Ziegler","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"\"Simplikios\"","main_title":{"title":"\"Simplikios\""},"abstract":"Simplikios (\u03a3\u03b9\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), Neuplatoniker, Sch\u00fcler des Ammonios, Sohnes des Hermeias. Simplikios muss von Alexandria nach Athen \u00fcbergesiedelt sein. Als das Schlie\u00dfungsedikt von 529 erging, war er Mitglied der Akademie. Mit anderen Akademikern versuchte er, im persischen Reich, vermutlich zu Ktesiphon am Hofe des K\u00f6nigs Chosroes I., eine neue St\u00e4tte f\u00fcr philosophische Forschung und Lehre zu begr\u00fcnden. Das schlug fehl; 533 kehrte Simplikios mit seinen Kollegen ins R\u00f6mische Reich zur\u00fcck, wo es ihm untersagt war, eine Lehrt\u00e4tigkeit auszu\u00fcben.\r\n\r\nAlle Schriften von Simplikios, die erhalten sind, wurden nach 533 verfasst. Er war der letzte Platoniker, der in seinen Schriften das Christentum angriff. Seine Werke sind durchweg Kommentare, allerdings ist kein Kommentar von ihm zu einem Dialog Platons bekannt; vermutlich erschien es ihm als zwecklos, mit den Kommentaren des Proklos in Wettstreit zu treten.\r\n\r\nVerloren ist sein Hauptwerk, der Kommentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 Metaphysik. In Handschriften erhalten, aber noch nicht ediert, sind ein Kommentar zu Hermogenes\u2019 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7 und zu Iamblichos\u2019 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Erhalten und s\u00e4mtlich in den Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca ediert sind folgende Kommentare:\r\n\r\n De caelo, ed. J. L. Heiberg, 1894 (CAG VII).\r\n Categoriae, ed. C. Kalbfleisch, 1907 (CAG VIII).\r\n Physica, ed. H. Diels, 1882, 1895 (CAG IX und X).\r\n De anima, ed. M. Hayduck, 1882 (CAG XI).\r\n\r\nDas ungew\u00f6hnlichste Werk von Simplikios ist sein Kommentar zum \u1f18\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd des Epiktet. Die dringend notwendige Neuausgabe wird von Frau Dr. I. Hadot vorbereitet.\r\n\r\nViele Kommentare anderer Platoniker sind aus Vorlesungen f\u00fcr Anf\u00e4nger hervorgegangen. Im Vergleich dazu stehen die Kommentare von Simplikios auf einem weit h\u00f6heren Niveau. Ihm, der nicht mehr lehren durfte, ging es darum, f\u00fcr k\u00fcnftige Gelehrte zu schreiben. \u201eGerade seine n\u00fcchternere Weise macht ihn im Verein mit seiner gro\u00dfen Gelehrsamkeit zu einem h\u00f6chst achtenswerten Kommentator.\u201c (K. Praechter).\r\n\r\nIn engem Zusammenhang damit steht, dass Simplikios vor allem im Kommentar zur Physik Zitate aus vorsokratischen Philosophen in betr\u00e4chtlichem Umfang in seinen Text aufgenommen hat (Stellenverzeichnis bei Diels Vorsokratiker\u00b3, 638\u2013640). Dass Empedokles und Parmenides f\u00fcr uns mehr sind als nur Namen, ist einzig Simplikios zu verdanken.\r\n\r\nDie Beweisf\u00fchrung von Simplikios tendiert dahin, dass aus allen Philosophen die gleiche \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 und der gleiche \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 spricht wie aus Platon. Das gilt f\u00fcr die Vorsokratiker ebenso wie f\u00fcr Aristoteles: Wo dieser Platon widerspricht, handelt es sich nur um eine Diskrepanz in Worten. So wird seine riesige Arbeit zu einer imposanten Apologie der Lehre, dass alle Philosophen \u2013 selbstverst\u00e4ndlich auch Epiktet \u2013 immer nur die eine, stets sich selbst gleiche, unwandelbare Wahrheit verk\u00fcndet haben.\r\n\r\nAu\u00dfer dem RE-Artikel von K. Praechter gibt es keine zusammenfassende W\u00fcrdigung von Simplikios. [the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"1975","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kSQQwhdCGL94DDh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":69,"full_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1292,"section_of":264,"pages":"205","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":264,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Der kleine Pauly, Band 5","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sontheimer1975","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1975","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1975","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nT4V3xwm4Jp1gS4","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":264,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnchen","publisher":"Druckenm\u00fcller","series":"Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\"Simplikios\""]}

'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff., 1971
By: Hall, J.J
Title 'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff.
Type Article
Language English
Date 1971
Journal The Journal of Hellenic Studies
Volume 91
Pages 138-139
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hall, J.J
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Thus  all  that  Simplicius  is  saying,  on  Eudemus’ 
authority,  is  that  Anaximander  ‘was  the  first  to 
discuss’  the  sizes  and  distances  of  ‘planets’,  using the  latter  term  to  include  sun  and  moon;  and this  agrees  with  what  the  doxographers  tell  us: Anaximander  had  views  about  the  distances  of  sun and  moon,  and  the  size  of the  sun.11  A   sceptic,  like Dicks,  may  question  this  whole  tradition;  but  it should  not  be  claimed  that  what  Simplicius  says  of Anaximander  and  planômena in  471.2-6  is  incon­sistent with  our  other authorities. [conclusion, p. 139]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1342","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1342,"authors_free":[{"id":2000,"entry_id":1342,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":165,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hall, J.J","free_first_name":"J.J.","free_last_name":"Hall","norm_person":{"id":165,"first_name":"J.J","last_name":"Hall","full_name":"Hall, J. J","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff.","main_title":{"title":"'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff."},"abstract":"Thus all that Simplicius is saying, on Eudemus\u2019 \r\nauthority, is that Anaximander \u2018was the first to \r\ndiscuss\u2019 the sizes and distances of \u2018planets\u2019, using the latter term to include sun and moon; and this agrees with what the doxographers tell us: Anaximander had views about the distances of sun and moon, and the size of the sun.11 A sceptic, like Dicks, may question this whole tradition; but it should not be claimed that what Simplicius says of Anaximander and plan\u00f4mena in 471.2-6 is incon\u00adsistent with our other authorities. [conclusion, p. 139]","btype":3,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/K5sTJaihiZL0lG5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":165,"full_name":"Hall, J. J","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1342,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"91","issue":"","pages":"138-139"}},"sort":["'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff."]}

(Neo-) Platonica, 1984
By: Steel, Carlos
Title (Neo-) Platonica
Type Article
Language Dutch
Date 1984
Journal Tijdschrift voor Filosofie
Volume 46
Issue 2
Pages 319-330
Categories no categories
Author(s) Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Filosofie is ons vooral in de vorm van teksten toegankelijk. Wie filosofie wil studeren, zal onvermijdelijk teksten moeten bestuderen en zal het resultaat van zijn eigen onderzoek weer in de vorm van teksten produceren. Wel heeft de filosofie van oudsher ook met de mogelijkheid rekening gehouden dat men inzichten kan verwerven die niet discursief uitgedrukt kunnen worden, die niet „textfähig“ zijn; maar toch is de filosofie weinig beïnvloed geworden door deze principiële mogelijkheid. Tenslotte kan men weer reflecteren en schrijven over deze niet-tekstmatige inzichten, zodat het erop lijkt dat men nooit uit de toverban van de tekst geraken kan. Niemand zal eraan denken het voordeel prijs te geven dat de filosofie heeft door zich aan teksten te binden en zo haar inzichten te objectiveren. Maar toch is het bedenkelijk dat men de binding van filosofisch inzicht aan de tekst als vanzelfsprekend ziet. Zo wordt ook niet meer duidelijk wat de „zaak“ is waarop de filosofische tekst betrekking heeft. Is er wel een „zaak-los-van-de-tekst“? Het is bekend dat Plato tegenover het fenomeen „tekst“ bewust afstand heeft genomen. Men kan hem zeker niet verwijten dat hij een naïef vertrouwen heeft in de tekst als medium van filosofisch inzicht: waar het in de filosofie eigenlijk om gaat is niet in tekst uit te drukken. Al is hij zelf meer dan wie ook tekst-kunstenaar, hij blijft zich bewust van de grenzen van de tekst. Wie uit Plato’s dialogen een doctrine construeert, een systeem van uitspraken over „wat het geval is“, verliest deze reserve ten opzichte van de tekst en reduceert de vele „vormen van kennis“ tot objectief „propositioneel“ kennen.

Dit is de invalshoek van waaruit Wolfgang Wieland, vooral bekend wegens zijn originele studie over Aristoteles’ Physica, zijn Plato-boek geschreven heeft: Platon und die Formen des Wissens. Het boek bevat drie delen. Het eerste is gewijd aan Plato’s verhouding tot de geschreven tekst. Uitgaande van de bekende passage in de Phaidros onderzoekt Wieland waarom Plato zo kritisch is ten opzichte van het schrift. Plato verzet zich tegen elke poging om het weten te objectiveren alsof men in de tekst over inzicht als over een stuk bezit zou kunnen beschikken. Elke formulering in taal blijft werktuig, iets voorlopigs. Het „gebruiksweten“ dat in de omgang met de dingen tot stand komt, heeft voorrang op het weten dat in proposities is uitgedrukt. Hier staan we meteen voor het centrale thema van Wielands boek. Het is echter de vraag of dit bij Plato wel zo centraal is. Bij Plato gaat het vooreerst om kritiek op het schrift, en niet op het propositionele weten als zodanig.

Vanuit de schriftkritiek kan men ook de dialoog als medium van filosofisch denken begrijpen. Indien men ondanks alle reserves toch niet aan tekst verzaken kan, dan biedt de dialoogvorm een uitweg. Eén van de tekorten van de tekst heeft namelijk te maken met het ontbreken van een reële context van het woord. De dialoog brengt deze context op dramatisch-fictieve wijze tot stand. De dialoog is geen didactisch hulpmiddel, geen inkleding van een leer. De uitspraken blijven er als „werktuigen“ in de gespreksactie fungeren. Vanuit de schriftkritiek kan men ook het statuut van de mythe binnen de tekst begrijpen, het metaforische karakter van vele passages, het gebruik van de ironie. Tenslotte wijst Wieland in § 5 op het belang van de fictieve chronologie bij het beoordelen van een dialoog. Men kan namelijk, uitgaande van de dramatische situatie van de verschillende dialogen, een fictieve chronologie opstellen: zo zal niemand betwisten dat de Parmenides later is geschreven dan de Phaidon (reële chronologie), maar in de fictieve chronologie komt de Parmenides veel eerder, omdat hierin de jonge Socrates optreedt, terwijl in de Phaidon Socrates voor de dood staat. In de interpretatie heeft men te weinig rekening gehouden met de plaats van een dialoog in deze fictieve chronologie.
[introduction p. 319-320] Übersetzung: Philosophie ist uns vor allem in der Form von Texten zugänglich. Wer Philosophie studieren will, muss zwangsläufig Texte studieren und wird die Ergebnisse seiner eigenen Forschung wiederum in Form von Texten präsentieren. Die Philosophie hat jedoch seit jeher auch die Möglichkeit berücksichtigt, dass Erkenntnisse gewonnen werden können, die nicht diskursiv ausgedrückt werden können, die also nicht „textfähig“ sind. Dennoch hat diese prinzipielle Möglichkeit die Philosophie kaum beeinflusst. Letztendlich kann man auch über diese nicht-textlichen Erkenntnisse reflektieren und schreiben, sodass es scheint, als könne man niemals aus dem Bann des Textes entkommen. Niemand wird daran denken, den Vorteil aufzugeben, den die Philosophie dadurch hat, sich an Texte zu binden und ihre Erkenntnisse so zu objektivieren. Doch es ist bedenklich, dass man die Bindung philosophischer Erkenntnis an den Text als selbstverständlich betrachtet. Dadurch wird auch unklar, was die „Sache“ ist, auf die sich der philosophische Text bezieht. Gibt es überhaupt eine „Sache außerhalb des Textes“?

Es ist bekannt, dass Platon dem Phänomen „Text“ bewusst distanziert gegenüberstand. Man kann ihm sicher nicht vorwerfen, ein naives Vertrauen in den Text als Medium philosophischer Erkenntnis gehabt zu haben: Worauf es in der Philosophie eigentlich ankommt, lässt sich nicht in Texten ausdrücken. Auch wenn er selbst mehr als jeder andere ein Künstler des Textes war, war er sich stets der Grenzen des Textes bewusst. Wer aus Platons Dialogen eine Doktrin konstruiert, ein System von Aussagen über „das, was der Fall ist“, verliert diese kritische Distanz zum Text und reduziert die vielen „Formen des Wissens“ auf ein objektives „propositionales“ Wissen.

Dies ist die Perspektive, aus der Wolfgang Wieland, vor allem bekannt für seine originelle Studie über Aristoteles’ Physik, sein Platon-Buch Platon und die Formen des Wissens geschrieben hat. Das Buch besteht aus drei Teilen. Der erste Teil widmet sich Platons Verhältnis zum geschriebenen Text. Ausgehend von der bekannten Passage im Phaidros untersucht Wieland, warum Platon dem Schreiben so kritisch gegenüberstand. Platon wendet sich gegen jede Versuchung, Wissen zu objektivieren, als könne man in einem Text über Erkenntnisse verfügen wie über einen Besitz. Jede Formulierung in Sprache bleibt ein Werkzeug, etwas Vorläufiges. Das „Gebrauchswissen“, das im Umgang mit den Dingen entsteht, hat Vorrang vor dem Wissen, das in Propositionen ausgedrückt ist. Hier begegnen wir dem zentralen Thema von Wielands Buch. Es bleibt jedoch die Frage, ob dies bei Platon tatsächlich zentral ist. Bei Platon geht es zunächst um Kritik am Schreiben und nicht um Kritik am propositionalen Wissen als solches.

Aus der Schriftkritik lässt sich auch die Dialogform als Medium des philosophischen Denkens verstehen. Wenn man trotz aller Vorbehalte nicht auf den Text verzichten kann, bietet die Dialogform einen Ausweg. Ein Mangel des Textes liegt nämlich im Fehlen eines realen Kontexts des Wortes. Der Dialog stellt diesen Kontext auf dramatisch-fiktive Weise her. Der Dialog ist kein didaktisches Hilfsmittel, keine Verpackung einer Lehre. Die Aussagen fungieren in der Dialoghandlung weiterhin als „Werkzeuge“. Aus der Schriftkritik lässt sich auch der Status des Mythos im Text verstehen, ebenso wie der metaphorische Charakter vieler Passagen und die Verwendung von Ironie. Schließlich weist Wieland in § 5 auf die Bedeutung der fiktiven Chronologie für die Beurteilung eines Dialogs hin. Ausgehend von der dramatischen Situation der verschiedenen Dialoge lässt sich eine fiktive Chronologie erstellen: Niemand wird bestreiten, dass der Parmenides später geschrieben wurde als der Phaidon (reale Chronologie), aber in der fiktiven Chronologie kommt der Parmenides viel früher, da dort der junge Sokrates auftritt, während im Phaidon Sokrates vor seinem Tod steht. In der Interpretation hat man die Stellung eines Dialogs in dieser fiktiven Chronologie bisher zu wenig berücksichtigt.

{"_index":"sire","_id":"845","_score":null,"_source":{"id":845,"authors_free":[{"id":1249,"entry_id":845,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"(Neo-) Platonica","main_title":{"title":"(Neo-) Platonica"},"abstract":"Filosofie is ons vooral in de vorm van teksten toegankelijk. Wie filosofie wil studeren, zal onvermijdelijk teksten moeten bestuderen en zal het resultaat van zijn eigen onderzoek weer in de vorm van teksten produceren. Wel heeft de filosofie van oudsher ook met de mogelijkheid rekening gehouden dat men inzichten kan verwerven die niet discursief uitgedrukt kunnen worden, die niet \u201etextf\u00e4hig\u201c zijn; maar toch is de filosofie weinig be\u00efnvloed geworden door deze principi\u00eble mogelijkheid. Tenslotte kan men weer reflecteren en schrijven over deze niet-tekstmatige inzichten, zodat het erop lijkt dat men nooit uit de toverban van de tekst geraken kan. Niemand zal eraan denken het voordeel prijs te geven dat de filosofie heeft door zich aan teksten te binden en zo haar inzichten te objectiveren. Maar toch is het bedenkelijk dat men de binding van filosofisch inzicht aan de tekst als vanzelfsprekend ziet. Zo wordt ook niet meer duidelijk wat de \u201ezaak\u201c is waarop de filosofische tekst betrekking heeft. Is er wel een \u201ezaak-los-van-de-tekst\u201c? Het is bekend dat Plato tegenover het fenomeen \u201etekst\u201c bewust afstand heeft genomen. Men kan hem zeker niet verwijten dat hij een na\u00efef vertrouwen heeft in de tekst als medium van filosofisch inzicht: waar het in de filosofie eigenlijk om gaat is niet in tekst uit te drukken. Al is hij zelf meer dan wie ook tekst-kunstenaar, hij blijft zich bewust van de grenzen van de tekst. Wie uit Plato\u2019s dialogen een doctrine construeert, een systeem van uitspraken over \u201ewat het geval is\u201c, verliest deze reserve ten opzichte van de tekst en reduceert de vele \u201evormen van kennis\u201c tot objectief \u201epropositioneel\u201c kennen.\r\n\r\nDit is de invalshoek van waaruit Wolfgang Wieland, vooral bekend wegens zijn originele studie over Aristoteles\u2019 Physica, zijn Plato-boek geschreven heeft: Platon und die Formen des Wissens. Het boek bevat drie delen. Het eerste is gewijd aan Plato\u2019s verhouding tot de geschreven tekst. Uitgaande van de bekende passage in de Phaidros onderzoekt Wieland waarom Plato zo kritisch is ten opzichte van het schrift. Plato verzet zich tegen elke poging om het weten te objectiveren alsof men in de tekst over inzicht als over een stuk bezit zou kunnen beschikken. Elke formulering in taal blijft werktuig, iets voorlopigs. Het \u201egebruiksweten\u201c dat in de omgang met de dingen tot stand komt, heeft voorrang op het weten dat in proposities is uitgedrukt. Hier staan we meteen voor het centrale thema van Wielands boek. Het is echter de vraag of dit bij Plato wel zo centraal is. Bij Plato gaat het vooreerst om kritiek op het schrift, en niet op het propositionele weten als zodanig.\r\n\r\nVanuit de schriftkritiek kan men ook de dialoog als medium van filosofisch denken begrijpen. Indien men ondanks alle reserves toch niet aan tekst verzaken kan, dan biedt de dialoogvorm een uitweg. E\u00e9n van de tekorten van de tekst heeft namelijk te maken met het ontbreken van een re\u00eble context van het woord. De dialoog brengt deze context op dramatisch-fictieve wijze tot stand. De dialoog is geen didactisch hulpmiddel, geen inkleding van een leer. De uitspraken blijven er als \u201ewerktuigen\u201c in de gespreksactie fungeren. Vanuit de schriftkritiek kan men ook het statuut van de mythe binnen de tekst begrijpen, het metaforische karakter van vele passages, het gebruik van de ironie. Tenslotte wijst Wieland in \u00a7 5 op het belang van de fictieve chronologie bij het beoordelen van een dialoog. Men kan namelijk, uitgaande van de dramatische situatie van de verschillende dialogen, een fictieve chronologie opstellen: zo zal niemand betwisten dat de Parmenides later is geschreven dan de Phaidon (re\u00eble chronologie), maar in de fictieve chronologie komt de Parmenides veel eerder, omdat hierin de jonge Socrates optreedt, terwijl in de Phaidon Socrates voor de dood staat. In de interpretatie heeft men te weinig rekening gehouden met de plaats van een dialoog in deze fictieve chronologie.\r\n[introduction p. 319-320] \u00dcbersetzung: Philosophie ist uns vor allem in der Form von Texten zug\u00e4nglich. Wer Philosophie studieren will, muss zwangsl\u00e4ufig Texte studieren und wird die Ergebnisse seiner eigenen Forschung wiederum in Form von Texten pr\u00e4sentieren. Die Philosophie hat jedoch seit jeher auch die M\u00f6glichkeit ber\u00fccksichtigt, dass Erkenntnisse gewonnen werden k\u00f6nnen, die nicht diskursiv ausgedr\u00fcckt werden k\u00f6nnen, die also nicht \u201etextf\u00e4hig\u201c sind. Dennoch hat diese prinzipielle M\u00f6glichkeit die Philosophie kaum beeinflusst. Letztendlich kann man auch \u00fcber diese nicht-textlichen Erkenntnisse reflektieren und schreiben, sodass es scheint, als k\u00f6nne man niemals aus dem Bann des Textes entkommen. Niemand wird daran denken, den Vorteil aufzugeben, den die Philosophie dadurch hat, sich an Texte zu binden und ihre Erkenntnisse so zu objektivieren. Doch es ist bedenklich, dass man die Bindung philosophischer Erkenntnis an den Text als selbstverst\u00e4ndlich betrachtet. Dadurch wird auch unklar, was die \u201eSache\u201c ist, auf die sich der philosophische Text bezieht. Gibt es \u00fcberhaupt eine \u201eSache au\u00dferhalb des Textes\u201c?\r\n\r\nEs ist bekannt, dass Platon dem Ph\u00e4nomen \u201eText\u201c bewusst distanziert gegen\u00fcberstand. Man kann ihm sicher nicht vorwerfen, ein naives Vertrauen in den Text als Medium philosophischer Erkenntnis gehabt zu haben: Worauf es in der Philosophie eigentlich ankommt, l\u00e4sst sich nicht in Texten ausdr\u00fccken. Auch wenn er selbst mehr als jeder andere ein K\u00fcnstler des Textes war, war er sich stets der Grenzen des Textes bewusst. Wer aus Platons Dialogen eine Doktrin konstruiert, ein System von Aussagen \u00fcber \u201edas, was der Fall ist\u201c, verliert diese kritische Distanz zum Text und reduziert die vielen \u201eFormen des Wissens\u201c auf ein objektives \u201epropositionales\u201c Wissen.\r\n\r\nDies ist die Perspektive, aus der Wolfgang Wieland, vor allem bekannt f\u00fcr seine originelle Studie \u00fcber Aristoteles\u2019 Physik, sein Platon-Buch Platon und die Formen des Wissens geschrieben hat. Das Buch besteht aus drei Teilen. Der erste Teil widmet sich Platons Verh\u00e4ltnis zum geschriebenen Text. Ausgehend von der bekannten Passage im Phaidros untersucht Wieland, warum Platon dem Schreiben so kritisch gegen\u00fcberstand. Platon wendet sich gegen jede Versuchung, Wissen zu objektivieren, als k\u00f6nne man in einem Text \u00fcber Erkenntnisse verf\u00fcgen wie \u00fcber einen Besitz. Jede Formulierung in Sprache bleibt ein Werkzeug, etwas Vorl\u00e4ufiges. Das \u201eGebrauchswissen\u201c, das im Umgang mit den Dingen entsteht, hat Vorrang vor dem Wissen, das in Propositionen ausgedr\u00fcckt ist. Hier begegnen wir dem zentralen Thema von Wielands Buch. Es bleibt jedoch die Frage, ob dies bei Platon tats\u00e4chlich zentral ist. Bei Platon geht es zun\u00e4chst um Kritik am Schreiben und nicht um Kritik am propositionalen Wissen als solches.\r\n\r\nAus der Schriftkritik l\u00e4sst sich auch die Dialogform als Medium des philosophischen Denkens verstehen. Wenn man trotz aller Vorbehalte nicht auf den Text verzichten kann, bietet die Dialogform einen Ausweg. Ein Mangel des Textes liegt n\u00e4mlich im Fehlen eines realen Kontexts des Wortes. Der Dialog stellt diesen Kontext auf dramatisch-fiktive Weise her. Der Dialog ist kein didaktisches Hilfsmittel, keine Verpackung einer Lehre. Die Aussagen fungieren in der Dialoghandlung weiterhin als \u201eWerkzeuge\u201c. Aus der Schriftkritik l\u00e4sst sich auch der Status des Mythos im Text verstehen, ebenso wie der metaphorische Charakter vieler Passagen und die Verwendung von Ironie. Schlie\u00dflich weist Wieland in \u00a7 5 auf die Bedeutung der fiktiven Chronologie f\u00fcr die Beurteilung eines Dialogs hin. Ausgehend von der dramatischen Situation der verschiedenen Dialoge l\u00e4sst sich eine fiktive Chronologie erstellen: Niemand wird bestreiten, dass der Parmenides sp\u00e4ter geschrieben wurde als der Phaidon (reale Chronologie), aber in der fiktiven Chronologie kommt der Parmenides viel fr\u00fcher, da dort der junge Sokrates auftritt, w\u00e4hrend im Phaidon Sokrates vor seinem Tod steht. In der Interpretation hat man die Stellung eines Dialogs in dieser fiktiven Chronologie bisher zu wenig ber\u00fccksichtigt.","btype":3,"date":"1984","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/H1e3T5fZsfMIh5O","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":845,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Tijdschrift voor Filosofie","volume":"46","issue":"2","pages":"319-330"}},"sort":["(Neo-) Platonica"]}

529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?, 1978
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title 529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1978
Journal Byzantion
Volume 48
Issue 2
Pages 369–385
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In an excellent and already well-known article, Professor Alan Cameron has made a strong case for the thesis that, notwithstanding the evidence of Malalas and a long-established tradition, Justinian did not succeed in finally closing the Platonic Academy in 529, and that its activities continued after a short interruption. The purpose of this paper is, firstly, to argue that some of the evidence usually adduced in favor of the view that the Academy was closed may not be applicable, but that it seems nevertheless to have succumbed to some form of imperial pressure, and, secondly, to question the view that philosophy continued to be taught, or even studied, at Athens from 532 until the Slavs sacked the city nearly fifty years later.

The most important piece of evidence for the continued existence of the Academy is a passage from Olympiodorus' commentary on Plato's 1st Alcibiades which says, "Perhaps Plato made a practice of taking no fees because he was well-off. That is why the diadochika have lasted till now, in spite of many confiscations." Diadochika is left untranslated since its meaning is by no means certain. It could refer to the salary of the Head of the Academy. It could also, however, be a term for the Academy's endowments in general. A third meaning, suggested by J. Whittaker, is spiritual rather than material heritage, but despite arguments, it is unlikely that the word in its context does not refer to some form of funding. To this point, we must return shortly.

Cameron argues convincingly that this passage was written somewhere around 560, on the grounds that it refers to an incident in the career of a grammaticus called Anatolius, dateable to the late 540s, as one that his readers can no longer be expected to remember. He infers from this that the Academy was still operating at that time and, moreover, in possession of substantial funds some thirty years after its alleged closure and expropriation. At about the same time, Whittaker, apparently writing before the appearance of Cameron's paper and arguing against Westerink, questioned whether the text adduced provided evidence either for confiscations at the time when Olympiodorus was writing or for the continued availability of material resources.

Olympiodorus' report certainly raises some serious problems. The first relates to the confiscations. Cameron has discussed a number of possible occasions between 529 and the date of the composition of Olympiodorus' commentary about 560. If Academy funds were being confiscated during that period, then clearly there must have been a conspicuous Academy to be subject to the confiscations. But, as Whittaker has pointed out, the reference of the present participle stating that there were confiscations could be to any time during the reference of the main verb, that is, to the whole period between Plato and the time of writing. One possible inference is that the funds had been subjected to confiscations even before 529 but still survived in the hands of the scholarchs after that date. Justinian's edict is quite likely not to have been new but, like much of his legislation, a re-enactment of former decrees—some of which were in any case disregarded. Nevertheless, it is difficult to find a suitable earlier occasion, or occasions, to be the time of the confiscations in question.

A second, and more basic, problem attaches to the funds themselves. There is no other evidence, except a report in the Suda article on Plato, and a parallel text in Photius, which attributes any of the late Academy's resources, or those of its office-holders, to inheritance from Plato. This Suda article, which is based on Damascius' Life of Isidore, tells us that only the Academy garden had been Plato's—he was not well-off—and that there were large accretions of funds in the fifth century. We know that most of the major buildings in Athens were destroyed by the Heruls in 267. Damascius, moreover, in the extract provided by Photius, made a point of denying what he says was a commonly held view that the resources of the Academy went back to Plato himself: τῶν δὲ διαδόχων οὐσία οὐκ ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ νομίζουσι Πλάτωνος ἦν τὸ ἀνέκαθεν. This summary too continues with the points that Plato was not rich, that only the garden was his, and that there were large additions through bequests later. From this text, we may infer that Olympiodorus' diadochika must have been school resources under the control of the school's head: Damascius is talking about sums of money, and the garden could hardly have been part of the scholarch's salary.

If, then, such funds as were available to the Academy in the 5th and 6th centuries were not the product of Plato's own endowments, Olympiodorus—or his source—has wrongly inferred from the Academy's current, or recent, wealth, and Plato's aristocratic background and refusal to take fees, that Plato himself was responsible for the endowments. Damascius' disclaimer shows that he was not the first to do so. And if Olympiodorus was wrong about that, then he might also, though less obviously, have been wrong in saying that the funds existed in his own day. His information could have been some thirty years out of date, a period for the survival of obsolete information by no means inconceivable even with modern methods of disseminating information. We need look no further than the reputations of university departments in our own times. If the close relation between Athenian and Alexandrian philosophers that had obtained in the fifth century were by now a thing of the past—whether because of odium academicum, as manifested in the bitter attacks launched by Philoponus on the views of Proclus in a previous generation, and Simplicius in his own, the latter being furiously reciprocated—or because nothing was any longer happening at Athens, or for some other reason, that would be sufficient to explain such an error.

To return to the question of a re-endowment in the 5th century. There are a number of indications that this happened. In the first place, negatively, there is little if any evidence that the Academy, or any but insignificant Platonists, were active at Athens in the preceding period. Positively, we have a report from Synesius that he went to Athens and found nothing going on at all:

"It is like a sacrificial victim at the end of the proceedings, with only the skin left as a token of the animal that once was. So philosophy has moved its home, and all that is left for a visitor is to wander around looking at the Academy, the Lyceum, and, yes, the Stoa Poikile..." [introduction p. 369-372]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"876","_score":null,"_source":{"id":876,"authors_free":[{"id":1287,"entry_id":876,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?","main_title":{"title":"529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?"},"abstract":"In an excellent and already well-known article, Professor Alan Cameron has made a strong case for the thesis that, notwithstanding the evidence of Malalas and a long-established tradition, Justinian did not succeed in finally closing the Platonic Academy in 529, and that its activities continued after a short interruption. The purpose of this paper is, firstly, to argue that some of the evidence usually adduced in favor of the view that the Academy was closed may not be applicable, but that it seems nevertheless to have succumbed to some form of imperial pressure, and, secondly, to question the view that philosophy continued to be taught, or even studied, at Athens from 532 until the Slavs sacked the city nearly fifty years later.\r\n\r\nThe most important piece of evidence for the continued existence of the Academy is a passage from Olympiodorus' commentary on Plato's 1st Alcibiades which says, \"Perhaps Plato made a practice of taking no fees because he was well-off. That is why the diadochika have lasted till now, in spite of many confiscations.\" Diadochika is left untranslated since its meaning is by no means certain. It could refer to the salary of the Head of the Academy. It could also, however, be a term for the Academy's endowments in general. A third meaning, suggested by J. Whittaker, is spiritual rather than material heritage, but despite arguments, it is unlikely that the word in its context does not refer to some form of funding. To this point, we must return shortly.\r\n\r\nCameron argues convincingly that this passage was written somewhere around 560, on the grounds that it refers to an incident in the career of a grammaticus called Anatolius, dateable to the late 540s, as one that his readers can no longer be expected to remember. He infers from this that the Academy was still operating at that time and, moreover, in possession of substantial funds some thirty years after its alleged closure and expropriation. At about the same time, Whittaker, apparently writing before the appearance of Cameron's paper and arguing against Westerink, questioned whether the text adduced provided evidence either for confiscations at the time when Olympiodorus was writing or for the continued availability of material resources.\r\n\r\nOlympiodorus' report certainly raises some serious problems. The first relates to the confiscations. Cameron has discussed a number of possible occasions between 529 and the date of the composition of Olympiodorus' commentary about 560. If Academy funds were being confiscated during that period, then clearly there must have been a conspicuous Academy to be subject to the confiscations. But, as Whittaker has pointed out, the reference of the present participle stating that there were confiscations could be to any time during the reference of the main verb, that is, to the whole period between Plato and the time of writing. One possible inference is that the funds had been subjected to confiscations even before 529 but still survived in the hands of the scholarchs after that date. Justinian's edict is quite likely not to have been new but, like much of his legislation, a re-enactment of former decrees\u2014some of which were in any case disregarded. Nevertheless, it is difficult to find a suitable earlier occasion, or occasions, to be the time of the confiscations in question.\r\n\r\nA second, and more basic, problem attaches to the funds themselves. There is no other evidence, except a report in the Suda article on Plato, and a parallel text in Photius, which attributes any of the late Academy's resources, or those of its office-holders, to inheritance from Plato. This Suda article, which is based on Damascius' Life of Isidore, tells us that only the Academy garden had been Plato's\u2014he was not well-off\u2014and that there were large accretions of funds in the fifth century. We know that most of the major buildings in Athens were destroyed by the Heruls in 267. Damascius, moreover, in the extract provided by Photius, made a point of denying what he says was a commonly held view that the resources of the Academy went back to Plato himself: \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd. This summary too continues with the points that Plato was not rich, that only the garden was his, and that there were large additions through bequests later. From this text, we may infer that Olympiodorus' diadochika must have been school resources under the control of the school's head: Damascius is talking about sums of money, and the garden could hardly have been part of the scholarch's salary.\r\n\r\nIf, then, such funds as were available to the Academy in the 5th and 6th centuries were not the product of Plato's own endowments, Olympiodorus\u2014or his source\u2014has wrongly inferred from the Academy's current, or recent, wealth, and Plato's aristocratic background and refusal to take fees, that Plato himself was responsible for the endowments. Damascius' disclaimer shows that he was not the first to do so. And if Olympiodorus was wrong about that, then he might also, though less obviously, have been wrong in saying that the funds existed in his own day. His information could have been some thirty years out of date, a period for the survival of obsolete information by no means inconceivable even with modern methods of disseminating information. We need look no further than the reputations of university departments in our own times. If the close relation between Athenian and Alexandrian philosophers that had obtained in the fifth century were by now a thing of the past\u2014whether because of odium academicum, as manifested in the bitter attacks launched by Philoponus on the views of Proclus in a previous generation, and Simplicius in his own, the latter being furiously reciprocated\u2014or because nothing was any longer happening at Athens, or for some other reason, that would be sufficient to explain such an error.\r\n\r\nTo return to the question of a re-endowment in the 5th century. There are a number of indications that this happened. In the first place, negatively, there is little if any evidence that the Academy, or any but insignificant Platonists, were active at Athens in the preceding period. Positively, we have a report from Synesius that he went to Athens and found nothing going on at all:\r\n\r\n\"It is like a sacrificial victim at the end of the proceedings, with only the skin left as a token of the animal that once was. So philosophy has moved its home, and all that is left for a visitor is to wander around looking at the Academy, the Lyceum, and, yes, the Stoa Poikile...\" [introduction p. 369-372]","btype":3,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8waAtP8ixbo8cmC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":876,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Byzantion","volume":"48","issue":"2","pages":"369\u2013385"}},"sort":["529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?"]}

A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy, 1982
By: Janko, Richard
Title A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy
Type Article
Language English
Date 1982
Journal The Classical Quarterly
Volume 32
Issue 2
Pages 323-326
Categories no categories
Author(s) Janko, Richard
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
An  important fragment of  the lost  portion  of  Aristotle's Poetics is  the definition of synonyms preserved by Simplicius,' which corresponds to Aristotle's own citation of the Poetics for synonyms in the Rhetoric, 3. 2. 1404b 37 ff. I shall argue elsewhere that this derives from a discussion of  the sources of  verbal humour in the lost account of 
comedy  and humour. Here it is  my  aim to  show  that  Simplicius definitely derived the quotation  from Porphyry, which pushes back the attestation of  this part of  the Poetics  by  more  than  two  centuries (although  the citation  in  the Antiatticist,  Poet. fr. 4  Kassel, is  older still). Furthermore, I  shall show  that some  of  the words in  the 
definition are a  gloss  added by Porphyry for the purposes of  his own  polemic. [introduction, p. 323]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1359","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1359,"authors_free":[{"id":2035,"entry_id":1359,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":203,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Janko, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Janko","norm_person":{"id":203,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Janko","full_name":"Janko, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1013357299","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy","main_title":{"title":"A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy"},"abstract":"An important fragment of the lost portion of Aristotle's Poetics is the definition of synonyms preserved by Simplicius,' which corresponds to Aristotle's own citation of the Poetics for synonyms in the Rhetoric, 3. 2. 1404b 37 ff. I shall argue elsewhere that this derives from a discussion of the sources of verbal humour in the lost account of \r\ncomedy and humour. Here it is my aim to show that Simplicius definitely derived the quotation from Porphyry, which pushes back the attestation of this part of the Poetics by more than two centuries (although the citation in the Antiatticist, Poet. fr. 4 Kassel, is older still). Furthermore, I shall show that some of the words in the \r\ndefinition are a gloss added by Porphyry for the purposes of his own polemic. [introduction, p. 323]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FEkzGy6BAHpTaIG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":203,"full_name":"Janko, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1359,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"32","issue":"2","pages":"323-326"}},"sort":["A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy"]}

After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday, 1985
By: Laga, Carl (Ed.), Munitiz, Joseph A. (Ed.), Rompay, Lucas van (Ed.)
Title After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1985
Publication Place Leuven
Publisher Itgeverij Peeters Leuven
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Laga, Carl , Munitiz, Joseph A. , Rompay, Lucas van
Translator(s)
This volume in honour of Prof. P.H.L. Eggermont, Indologist and Classicist, is focused on North and Northwest India, and on the adjacent regions to the west, with special attention to the Hellenistic monarchies, the historical geography of India, the ancient trade routes, and the contacts between India, Greece and Rome. The contributions of this Festschrift provide a bulk of material, especially for those interested in relations between Classical and Oriental philological, historical, archaeological, and geographical sources. Besides, the volume contains a biography and a bibliography of Prof. Eggermont. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1392","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1392,"authors_free":[{"id":2157,"entry_id":1392,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":349,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Laga, Carl","free_first_name":"Carl","free_last_name":"Laga","norm_person":{"id":349,"first_name":"Carl","last_name":"Laga","full_name":"Laga, Carl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119278146","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2158,"entry_id":1392,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":350,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","free_first_name":"Joseph A.","free_last_name":"Munitiz","norm_person":{"id":350,"first_name":"Joseph A.","last_name":"Munitiz","full_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/105468202X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2159,"entry_id":1392,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":351,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","free_first_name":"Lucas","free_last_name":"Rompay van","norm_person":{"id":351,"first_name":"Lucas","last_name":"Rompay, van","full_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055081453","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday","main_title":{"title":"After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday"},"abstract":"This volume in honour of Prof. P.H.L. Eggermont, Indologist and Classicist, is focused on North and Northwest India, and on the adjacent regions to the west, with special attention to the Hellenistic monarchies, the historical geography of India, the ancient trade routes, and the contacts between India, Greece and Rome. The contributions of this Festschrift provide a bulk of material, especially for those interested in relations between Classical and Oriental philological, historical, archaeological, and geographical sources. Besides, the volume contains a biography and a bibliography of Prof. Eggermont. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1985","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GSkAPkgJ17bDZ3g","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":349,"full_name":"Laga, Carl","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":350,"full_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":351,"full_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1392,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Itgeverij Peeters Leuven","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday"]}

Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima, 1987
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Pages 90-106
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
These  are  a  few  examples  of  how  the  Neoplatonist  commenta­
tors  confronted  Alexander  on  matters  where  differences  could 
hardly fail  to  arise. What happens  is  clear enough.  But it would be 
wrong to think that these principles of interpretation are not applied 
at  other  points  in  the  work.  Let  us  take  an  apparently  innocuous 
issue like the section where Aristotle discusses locomotion under the 
stimulus  of the  appetitive  faculty  (433  b  8sqq.). Alexander, giving a 
clearly  Aristotelian  explanation,  said  that  the  faculty  was  moved 
accidentally.  Plutarch  differed,  and  said  that  the  activity  of  the 
appetitive  faculty  is  movement:  this  Simplicius  describes  as  a  Pla­
tonic explanation, and prefers it (302,23-30).44 On the other hand, a 
few  pages  below  Simplicius  prefers  Alexander  to  Plutarch  on  the 
question  whether  moving  but  ungenerated  entities  have  sense-per­
ception  (320,33-34):  we  have  already  looked  at  his  and  Stephanus’ account  of  this  passage.45  As  we  indicated,  Stephanus  there quotes 
Alexander only to disagree with him, and here we have at least one 
piece  of  evidence  to  show  that  Neoplatonist  commentators  could 
take a different view of the same passage. If we had more examples 
of texts where Alexander’s views of the De anima were discussed by 
more than one of his successors, we should be able to form a clearer 
picture  of  how  far  the  different  commentators  were  prepared  to 
accept them, and thus incidentally of the precise differences between 
these commentators themselves on the points at issue. [conclusion p. 105-106]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"805","_score":null,"_source":{"id":805,"authors_free":[{"id":1191,"entry_id":805,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"},"abstract":"These are a few examples of how the Neoplatonist commenta\u00ad\r\ntors confronted Alexander on matters where differences could \r\nhardly fail to arise. What happens is clear enough. But it would be \r\nwrong to think that these principles of interpretation are not applied \r\nat other points in the work. Let us take an apparently innocuous \r\nissue like the section where Aristotle discusses locomotion under the \r\nstimulus of the appetitive faculty (433 b 8sqq.). Alexander, giving a \r\nclearly Aristotelian explanation, said that the faculty was moved \r\naccidentally. Plutarch differed, and said that the activity of the \r\nappetitive faculty is movement: this Simplicius describes as a Pla\u00ad\r\ntonic explanation, and prefers it (302,23-30).44 On the other hand, a \r\nfew pages below Simplicius prefers Alexander to Plutarch on the \r\nquestion whether moving but ungenerated entities have sense-per\u00ad\r\nception (320,33-34): we have already looked at his and Stephanus\u2019 account of this passage.45 As we indicated, Stephanus there quotes \r\nAlexander only to disagree with him, and here we have at least one \r\npiece of evidence to show that Neoplatonist commentators could \r\ntake a different view of the same passage. If we had more examples \r\nof texts where Alexander\u2019s views of the De anima were discussed by \r\nmore than one of his successors, we should be able to form a clearer \r\npicture of how far the different commentators were prepared to \r\naccept them, and thus incidentally of the precise differences between \r\nthese commentators themselves on the points at issue. [conclusion p. 105-106]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yyFedFSkP8qo8dn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":805,"section_of":189,"pages":"90-106","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"]}

Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics. A study of the De mixtione with Preliminary Essays, Text, Translation and Commentary, 1976
By: Todd, Robert B.
Title Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics. A study of the De mixtione with Preliminary Essays, Text, Translation and Commentary
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1976
Publication Place Leiden
Publisher Brill
Series Philosophia antiqua
Volume 28
Categories no categories
Author(s) Todd, Robert B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The importance of  Alexander of  Aphrodisias in the Aristotelian 
tradition in Western  philosophy is  well  established.  This reputa›
tion however rests almost exclusively on his very influential inter›
pretation of Aristotle’s doctrine of the active intellect. The subject 
of the present study, the de mixtione, is a treatise in which he deals 
with  the  philosophically  less  important  topic  of  the  mixture  of 
physical bodies.  My  aim is  to show that both as  an exposition of 
Aristotelian thought and as an extended discussion of Stoic physics 
it offers  an excellent  opportunity to observe  the development  of 
Peripatetic scholasticism  in the face  of  ideas  developed  in post›
Aristotelian  philosophy.  In this  way  I  shall  try to establish  the 
largely unacknowledged importance of Alexander’s contribution to 
the Greek philosophical tradition. 
Alexander  is  still  unfortunately  a  relatively  obscure  author 
and so I  have devoted Part One of this study to a basic description 
of  his works and a  preliminary attempt to place him in his intel›
lectual milieu. His philosophical creativity, as this essay will show, 
has  greater  rein  in  his  short  treatises  than  in  his  monumental 
commentaries, and it is from these works that his relation to other 
philosophical  schools  can  best  be  gauged.  Like  his  de  Jato  the 
de  mixtione is basically an attack on the Stoics, but it also contains 
a  great  deal  of  important source  material and some  constructive 
criticisms of Stoic physics. Much of this I shall evaluate in a com›
mentary in Part Three,  but these  aspects  of  the work  must also 
be seen  in the light of  similar contributions by our other sources 
for  Stoic  physics  as  well  as  Alexander’s  own  overall  relation  to 
Stoicism.  For this reason in Part Two  I  survey the latter before 
undertaking  an  extended  examination  of  Alexander’s  exposition 
and critique of  the Stoic theory of total blending (xpiia~<;  8~’  lSAwv), the main subject of the de  mixtione. [preface]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"48","_score":null,"_source":{"id":48,"authors_free":[{"id":56,"entry_id":48,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":340,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, Robert B.","free_first_name":"Robert B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":{"id":340,"first_name":"Robert B.","last_name":"Todd","full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129460788","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics. A study of the De mixtione with Preliminary Essays, Text, Translation and Commentary","main_title":{"title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics. A study of the De mixtione with Preliminary Essays, Text, Translation and Commentary"},"abstract":"The importance of Alexander of Aphrodisias in the Aristotelian \r\ntradition in Western philosophy is well established. This reputa\u203a\r\ntion however rests almost exclusively on his very influential inter\u203a\r\npretation of Aristotle\u2019s doctrine of the active intellect. The subject \r\nof the present study, the de mixtione, is a treatise in which he deals \r\nwith the philosophically less important topic of the mixture of \r\nphysical bodies. My aim is to show that both as an exposition of \r\nAristotelian thought and as an extended discussion of Stoic physics \r\nit offers an excellent opportunity to observe the development of \r\nPeripatetic scholasticism in the face of ideas developed in post\u203a\r\nAristotelian philosophy. In this way I shall try to establish the \r\nlargely unacknowledged importance of Alexander\u2019s contribution to \r\nthe Greek philosophical tradition. \r\nAlexander is still unfortunately a relatively obscure author \r\nand so I have devoted Part One of this study to a basic description \r\nof his works and a preliminary attempt to place him in his intel\u203a\r\nlectual milieu. His philosophical creativity, as this essay will show, \r\nhas greater rein in his short treatises than in his monumental \r\ncommentaries, and it is from these works that his relation to other \r\nphilosophical schools can best be gauged. Like his de Jato the \r\nde mixtione is basically an attack on the Stoics, but it also contains \r\na great deal of important source material and some constructive \r\ncriticisms of Stoic physics. Much of this I shall evaluate in a com\u203a\r\nmentary in Part Three, but these aspects of the work must also \r\nbe seen in the light of similar contributions by our other sources \r\nfor Stoic physics as well as Alexander\u2019s own overall relation to \r\nStoicism. For this reason in Part Two I survey the latter before \r\nundertaking an extended examination of Alexander\u2019s exposition \r\nand critique of the Stoic theory of total blending (xpiia~<; 8~\u2019 lSAwv), the main subject of the de mixtione. [preface]","btype":1,"date":"1976","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4Gg0RFYjZ0oHdLr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":48,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"28","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics. A study of the De mixtione with Preliminary Essays, Text, Translation and Commentary"]}

An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories?, 1981
By: Huby, Pamela M.
Title An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1981
Journal The Classical Quarterly
Volume 31
Issue 2
Pages 398-409
Categories no categories
Author(s) Huby, Pamela M.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The text discusses an excerpt of a set of leaves from a fourteenth-century manuscript called Laurentianus 71, 32, containing paraphrases of several works. Theodore Waitz uses these leaves for scholia on Aristotle's Categories and De Interpretatione. The heading of the leaves is "Peri tês tou pote katêgorias," and the work consists of two parts. The first part discusses Time, based on Physics 4, while the second part deals with the category of When, which Aristotle only briefly mentions. The author of the work is believed to be Boethus of Sidon, the Peripatetic, who wrote a commentary on the Categories, as mentioned by Simplicius in his own commentary on the same work. Boethus is seen as a conservative who defended Aristotle against innovations, particularly Andronicus of Rhodes' attempt to substitute the category of Time for When. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1355","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1355,"authors_free":[{"id":2029,"entry_id":1355,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":200,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","free_first_name":"Pamela M.","free_last_name":"Huby","norm_person":{"id":200,"first_name":"Pamela M.","last_name":"Huby","full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120868962","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories?","main_title":{"title":"An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories?"},"abstract":"The text discusses an excerpt of a set of leaves from a fourteenth-century manuscript called Laurentianus 71, 32, containing paraphrases of several works. Theodore Waitz uses these leaves for scholia on Aristotle's Categories and De Interpretatione. The heading of the leaves is \"Peri t\u00eas tou pote kat\u00eagorias,\" and the work consists of two parts. The first part discusses Time, based on Physics 4, while the second part deals with the category of When, which Aristotle only briefly mentions. The author of the work is believed to be Boethus of Sidon, the Peripatetic, who wrote a commentary on the Categories, as mentioned by Simplicius in his own commentary on the same work. Boethus is seen as a conservative who defended Aristotle against innovations, particularly Andronicus of Rhodes' attempt to substitute the category of Time for When. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MEh6PB5J3LpaDg5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":200,"full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1355,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"31","issue":"2","pages":"398-409"}},"sort":["An Excerpt from Boethus of Sidon's Commentary on the Categories?"]}

Analyse de l'édition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d'Aristote, 1977
By: Cordero, Néstor-Luis
Title Analyse de l'édition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d'Aristote
Type Article
Language French
Date 1977
Journal Hermes
Volume 105
Issue 1
Pages 42-54
Categories no categories
Author(s) Cordero, Néstor-Luis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Pour compléter notre analyse, nous devrions identifier l’éditeur de Simplicius de 1526. Du temps d’Alde, la plupart des ouvrages d’auteurs grecs (rappelons qu’il éditait aussi des ouvrages latins et italiens) étaient réservés à Musurus.

À la mort d’Alde, comme nous l’avons dit, Musurus a continué de collaborer avec Andrea d’Asola, mais seulement jusqu’en 1516. En 1517, le fils d’Andrea, Francesco d’Asola, a commencé à travailler à l’imprimerie, et l’année suivante, il figure déjà en tant qu’éditeur responsable de Térence, de Dioscoride et d’Eschyle.

À partir de 1518, sauf pour l’édition de Cicéron de 1519, Francesco d’Asola figure en tant que responsable direct de la plupart des éditions aldines où l’on indique le nom de l’éditeur, tout au moins jusqu’en 1529.

Mais nous avons des ouvrages d’éditeur anonyme où Francesco d’Asola ne figure qu’en tant qu’auteur de la préface. C’est précisément le cas de l’édition de Simplicius, dont la préface est dédicacée par F. Asulanus au cardinal Hercule Gonzaga.

Avec certaines réserves, nous pouvons donc supposer que, d’une manière ou d’une autre, Francesco d’Asola est le responsable de l’édition et, ainsi, l’auteur des conjectures qu’elle présente.

En ce qui concerne sa valeur, Renouard fait remarquer qu’il s’agit d’un éditeur intelligent « mais beaucoup trop hardi dans ses conjectures », ainsi qu’il apparaît dans son édition des Argonautica de C. V. Flaccus, en 1523.

Cependant, le cas le plus illustratif est son édition d’Homère (à laquelle nous avons fait précédemment allusion) de 1524, qui présente de telles divergences par rapport aux précédentes qu’elle semblerait être fondée sur un nouveau manuscrit. Mais Renouard rejette cette hypothèse :

    « Il s’agit simplement de conjectures de Francesco d’Asola lui-même, car s’il avait été appuyé de nouveaux manuscrits, il n’eût pas manqué d’en avertir dans une nouvelle préface, au lieu de copier celle d’Alde de l’édition de 1504, déjà imprimée dans celle de 1517. »

Tout porte à croire, par conséquent, que l’édition de Simplicius de 1526 a été effectuée sous la responsabilité de Francesco d’Asola, dont les conjectures, en général, n’ont pas été tellement heureuses.

Cependant, nous devons reconnaître une fois de plus que nous nous trouvons sur le plan des conjectures et que la possibilité — lointaine, certes — n’est pas exclue que Francesco d’Asola ait disposé de l’archétype de l’œuvre de Simplicius.

Toutefois, nous pouvons constater que les manuscrits conservés actuellement présentent le même texte que E et F et, par conséquent, ne justifient pas quelques conjectures "trop hardies".
[conclusion p. 53-54]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1277","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1277,"authors_free":[{"id":1866,"entry_id":1277,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":54,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_last_name":"Cordero","norm_person":{"id":54,"first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","last_name":"Cordero","full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055808973","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Analyse de l'\u00e9dition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Analyse de l'\u00e9dition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote"},"abstract":"Pour compl\u00e9ter notre analyse, nous devrions identifier l\u2019\u00e9diteur de Simplicius de 1526. Du temps d\u2019Alde, la plupart des ouvrages d\u2019auteurs grecs (rappelons qu\u2019il \u00e9ditait aussi des ouvrages latins et italiens) \u00e9taient r\u00e9serv\u00e9s \u00e0 Musurus.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 la mort d\u2019Alde, comme nous l\u2019avons dit, Musurus a continu\u00e9 de collaborer avec Andrea d\u2019Asola, mais seulement jusqu\u2019en 1516. En 1517, le fils d\u2019Andrea, Francesco d\u2019Asola, a commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 travailler \u00e0 l\u2019imprimerie, et l\u2019ann\u00e9e suivante, il figure d\u00e9j\u00e0 en tant qu\u2019\u00e9diteur responsable de T\u00e9rence, de Dioscoride et d\u2019Eschyle.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 partir de 1518, sauf pour l\u2019\u00e9dition de Cic\u00e9ron de 1519, Francesco d\u2019Asola figure en tant que responsable direct de la plupart des \u00e9ditions aldines o\u00f9 l\u2019on indique le nom de l\u2019\u00e9diteur, tout au moins jusqu\u2019en 1529.\r\n\r\nMais nous avons des ouvrages d\u2019\u00e9diteur anonyme o\u00f9 Francesco d\u2019Asola ne figure qu\u2019en tant qu\u2019auteur de la pr\u00e9face. C\u2019est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment le cas de l\u2019\u00e9dition de Simplicius, dont la pr\u00e9face est d\u00e9dicac\u00e9e par F. Asulanus au cardinal Hercule Gonzaga.\r\n\r\nAvec certaines r\u00e9serves, nous pouvons donc supposer que, d\u2019une mani\u00e8re ou d\u2019une autre, Francesco d\u2019Asola est le responsable de l\u2019\u00e9dition et, ainsi, l\u2019auteur des conjectures qu\u2019elle pr\u00e9sente.\r\n\r\nEn ce qui concerne sa valeur, Renouard fait remarquer qu\u2019il s\u2019agit d\u2019un \u00e9diteur intelligent \u00ab mais beaucoup trop hardi dans ses conjectures \u00bb, ainsi qu\u2019il appara\u00eet dans son \u00e9dition des Argonautica de C. V. Flaccus, en 1523.\r\n\r\nCependant, le cas le plus illustratif est son \u00e9dition d\u2019Hom\u00e8re (\u00e0 laquelle nous avons fait pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment allusion) de 1524, qui pr\u00e9sente de telles divergences par rapport aux pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes qu\u2019elle semblerait \u00eatre fond\u00e9e sur un nouveau manuscrit. Mais Renouard rejette cette hypoth\u00e8se :\r\n\r\n \u00ab Il s\u2019agit simplement de conjectures de Francesco d\u2019Asola lui-m\u00eame, car s\u2019il avait \u00e9t\u00e9 appuy\u00e9 de nouveaux manuscrits, il n\u2019e\u00fbt pas manqu\u00e9 d\u2019en avertir dans une nouvelle pr\u00e9face, au lieu de copier celle d\u2019Alde de l\u2019\u00e9dition de 1504, d\u00e9j\u00e0 imprim\u00e9e dans celle de 1517. \u00bb\r\n\r\nTout porte \u00e0 croire, par cons\u00e9quent, que l\u2019\u00e9dition de Simplicius de 1526 a \u00e9t\u00e9 effectu\u00e9e sous la responsabilit\u00e9 de Francesco d\u2019Asola, dont les conjectures, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, n\u2019ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 tellement heureuses.\r\n\r\nCependant, nous devons reconna\u00eetre une fois de plus que nous nous trouvons sur le plan des conjectures et que la possibilit\u00e9 \u2014 lointaine, certes \u2014 n\u2019est pas exclue que Francesco d\u2019Asola ait dispos\u00e9 de l\u2019arch\u00e9type de l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nToutefois, nous pouvons constater que les manuscrits conserv\u00e9s actuellement pr\u00e9sentent le m\u00eame texte que E et F et, par cons\u00e9quent, ne justifient pas quelques conjectures \"trop hardies\".\r\n[conclusion p. 53-54]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ooZGKSisiH1j9G1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":54,"full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1277,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"105","issue":"1","pages":"42-54"}},"sort":["Analyse de l'\u00e9dition Aldine du Commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote"]}

Anaxagoras B 14 DK, 1976
By: Marcovich, Miroslav
Title Anaxagoras B 14 DK
Type Article
Language English
Date 1976
Journal Hermes
Volume 104
Issue 2
Pages 240-241
Categories no categories
Author(s) Marcovich, Miroslav
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Notes about Anaxagoras B 14 DK

{"_index":"sire","_id":"987","_score":null,"_source":{"id":987,"authors_free":[{"id":1488,"entry_id":987,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":239,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Marcovich, Miroslav","free_first_name":"Miroslav","free_last_name":"Marcovich","norm_person":{"id":239,"first_name":"Miroslav","last_name":"Marcovich","full_name":"Marcovich, Miroslav","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107592630","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaxagoras B 14 DK","main_title":{"title":"Anaxagoras B 14 DK"},"abstract":"Notes about Anaxagoras B 14 DK","btype":3,"date":"1976","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qjqMabHfJRZhGG4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":239,"full_name":"Marcovich, Miroslav","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":987,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"104","issue":"2","pages":"240-241"}},"sort":["Anaxagoras B 14 DK"]}

Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK, 1974
By: Sider, David
Title Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK
Type Article
Language English
Date 1974
Journal Hermes
Volume 102
Issue 2
Pages 365-367
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sider, David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Note on Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK

{"_index":"sire","_id":"851","_score":null,"_source":{"id":851,"authors_free":[{"id":1255,"entry_id":851,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":320,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sider, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Sider","norm_person":{"id":320,"first_name":"David","last_name":"Sider","full_name":"Sider, David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1129478610","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK","main_title":{"title":"Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK"},"abstract":"Note on Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK","btype":3,"date":"1974","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jfkLIWo4A4TjQYr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":320,"full_name":"Sider, David","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":851,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"102","issue":"2","pages":"365-367"}},"sort":["Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK"]}

Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie, 1990
By: Isnardi Parente, Margherita
Title Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 1990
Journal Rivista di Storia della Filosofia
Volume 45
Issue 4
Pages 723-732
Categories no categories
Author(s) Isnardi Parente, Margherita
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
La storia del concetto di relativo ha già precedenti che sarebbe troppo lungo ricordare. Basti accennare qui a due essenziali limitazioni che i relativi hanno già subito nella storia della tradizione platonico-aristotelica: la negazione di un modello ideale per la relazione (i modelli ideali esistono per le realtà poste in relazione, non per la relazione stessa o per ciò che è solo in funzione della relazione); la definizione di paraphyas per il relativo, definizione che va da Aristotele (EN I, 1096 a 21) ad Andronico ed oltre: paraphyas, cioè ciò che si pone accanto alla vera phýsis, come una sorta di natura aggiunta e secondaria.

Gli stoici hanno una loro parte nella storia di questa riduzione della relazione a fatto di ordine mentale o soggettivo. I pros ti pôs echonta sono una nuova forma di incorporeo che viene ad aggiungersi alle altre, anche se nessuna lista riveduta ci è fornita dalla tradizione. E di questa nuova importanza dell'incorporeità in rapporto con la teoria dei generi dell'essere, passi come quello di Simplicio o come questo di Sesto offrono una attestazione fondamentale. [conclusion p. 731-732]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"620","_score":null,"_source":{"id":620,"authors_free":[{"id":876,"entry_id":620,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":282,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","free_first_name":"Margherita","free_last_name":"Parente","norm_person":{"id":282,"first_name":"Margherita","last_name":"Isnardi Parente","full_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1023256045","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie","main_title":{"title":"Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie"},"abstract":"La storia del concetto di relativo ha gi\u00e0 precedenti che sarebbe troppo lungo ricordare. Basti accennare qui a due essenziali limitazioni che i relativi hanno gi\u00e0 subito nella storia della tradizione platonico-aristotelica: la negazione di un modello ideale per la relazione (i modelli ideali esistono per le realt\u00e0 poste in relazione, non per la relazione stessa o per ci\u00f2 che \u00e8 solo in funzione della relazione); la definizione di paraphyas per il relativo, definizione che va da Aristotele (EN I, 1096 a 21) ad Andronico ed oltre: paraphyas, cio\u00e8 ci\u00f2 che si pone accanto alla vera ph\u00fdsis, come una sorta di natura aggiunta e secondaria.\r\n\r\nGli stoici hanno una loro parte nella storia di questa riduzione della relazione a fatto di ordine mentale o soggettivo. I pros ti p\u00f4s echonta sono una nuova forma di incorporeo che viene ad aggiungersi alle altre, anche se nessuna lista riveduta ci \u00e8 fornita dalla tradizione. E di questa nuova importanza dell'incorporeit\u00e0 in rapporto con la teoria dei generi dell'essere, passi come quello di Simplicio o come questo di Sesto offrono una attestazione fondamentale. [conclusion p. 731-732]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RIxIO3H5yPGRKEc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":282,"full_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":620,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rivista di Storia della Filosofia","volume":"45","issue":"4","pages":"723-732"}},"sort":["Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie"]}

Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of περί τῆς ’Αληθείας, 1973
By: Rankin, Herbert David
Title Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of περί τῆς ’Αληθείας
Type Article
Language English
Date 1973
Journal L'Antiquité Classique
Volume 42
Issue 1
Pages 178-180
Categories no categories
Author(s) Rankin, Herbert David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This passage (Simplicii in Categoriarum c. 8 [Arist. p. ]) is placed by Caizzi among a group of passages of epistemological interest but not clearly attributable to any of the works which Antisthenes is said to have composed. Its argument is characteristic enough, being one of the representations of Antisthenes' opposition to Plato's eîdē, and an assertion of his view that the concrete phenomenal object is the starting point of our capability of knowledge, which in his view is probably limited by the restrictions placed upon us by the narrow capacity of our language with regard to logical discourse.

The purpose of this article is to consider whether a part of this passage is a quotation from Antisthenes' own writings and to suggest a possible place for it in one of the works with which he is credited. [introduction p. 178]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"861","_score":null,"_source":{"id":861,"authors_free":[{"id":1265,"entry_id":861,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":296,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rankin, Herbert David","free_first_name":"Herbert David","free_last_name":"Rankin","norm_person":{"id":296,"first_name":"Herbert David","last_name":"Rankin","full_name":"Rankin, Herbert David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1058155474","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u2019\u0391\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2","main_title":{"title":"Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u2019\u0391\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2"},"abstract":"This passage (Simplicii in Categoriarum c. 8 [Arist. p. ]) is placed by Caizzi among a group of passages of epistemological interest but not clearly attributable to any of the works which Antisthenes is said to have composed. Its argument is characteristic enough, being one of the representations of Antisthenes' opposition to Plato's e\u00eed\u0113, and an assertion of his view that the concrete phenomenal object is the starting point of our capability of knowledge, which in his view is probably limited by the restrictions placed upon us by the narrow capacity of our language with regard to logical discourse.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of this article is to consider whether a part of this passage is a quotation from Antisthenes' own writings and to suggest a possible place for it in one of the works with which he is credited. [introduction p. 178]","btype":3,"date":"1973","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/a36SykFCN2qyzot","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":296,"full_name":"Rankin, Herbert David","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":861,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"L'Antiquit\u00e9 Classique","volume":"42","issue":"1","pages":"178-180"}},"sort":["Antisthenes Fg. 50B (Caizzi): A Possible Section of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u2019\u0391\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2"]}

Apories orales de Plotin sur les Catégories d’Aristote, 1987
By: Henry, Paul, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Apories orales de Plotin sur les Catégories d’Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Pages 120-156
Categories no categories
Author(s) Henry, Paul
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Les premières apories que Dexippe attribue explicitement à Plotin traitent du nombre des catégories, mais plus précisément sous l’aspect du rapport des catégories du monde intelligible à celles du monde sensible. Chez Simplicius aussi ces apories sont explicitement attribuées à Plotin. D’un monde à l’autre, les catégories sont-elles les mêmes ou différentes, ou bien les unes sont-elles les mêmes, les autres différentes ? Sont-elles en nombre égal, plus nombreuses, moins nombreuses ? C’est le problème préliminaire qu’examine Plotin au chapitre 1 de son premier traité VI 1, au début du chapitre 2 sur la substance et, une troisième fois, au début du chapitre 5 de son troisième traité, VI 3. Nos textes de base sont donc : VI 1,1,19-30 ; VI 1,2,1-8 ; VI 3,5,1-7, mais aussi VI 2,16,1-2 et VI 3,27,1-4.

S’y réfèrent trois apories de Dexippe, mais l’une sous trois formes différentes – ce qui nous donne cinq petits textes – et deux longues pages de Simplicius, qui correspondent pour une part aux Ennéades, pour une part aux textes de Dexippe, mais qui toutes deux associent le nom de Plotin à celui de ses prédécesseurs. En outre, deux textes anonymes, l’un de Dexippe, l’autre de Simplicius.

Les relations entre tous ces textes étant fort compliquées, il est utile de les énumérer ici, avec les sigles que je leur attribue, et dans l’ordre où je les étudie :

    01 = Simpl. p. 73,15-28 (Plotin, Lucius et Nicostrate)
    01b* = Dex. II 1 sommaire et aporie (anonymes) = Simpl. p. 73,15-16 (Plotin)
    02 = Simpl. p. 73,25-27 (Plotin)
    01a* = Dex. II 4 sommaire et aporie (Plotin)
    F1 = Simpl. p. 76,13-22 (Plotin et Nicostrate)
    F1 = Dex. II 2 aporie (dans le corps de l’ouvrage) (Plotin)
    01c = Dex. II 2 sommaire (Plotin)
    01e = Dex. II 2 solution (Plotin), cf. Simpl. 76,22-77,4
    F2 = Dex. 138 solution (anonyme) = Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (anonyme)

Bien que, au début, ces distinctions paraissent compliquées, la suite montrera qu’elles aident à clarifier les questions.

Je signale tout de suite que le grand texte attribué au « très divin Plotin » par Simpl. p. 73,15-28 contient aussi ce que contiennent Dex. II 1, Dex. II 2 somm., et de nombreuses correspondances avec Dex. II 4.

Nous finirons notre chapitre par un texte très court relatif au problème de l’opposé du mouvement, le repos, auquel font allusion Enn. VI 3,27,4-5, ainsi que Dex. I 38 sol., p. 34,17-19 (τις) et Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (τις), et qui, faisant partie d’une source composite, justifiera le sigle F2.

Le tout est un chassé-croisé de références, un enchevêtrement de textes, de correspondances et de non-correspondances entre l’écrit, l’oral, les sources, à peu près inextricable, un des ensembles les plus complexes auxquels nous ayons jamais eu affaire.

Dans ce fouillis, je vais m’efforcer d’introduire un peu d’ordre et de clarté. Patiemment, car il s’agit bien d’un jeu de patience, je répartirai de mon mieux ces fragments, qui chevauchent les uns sur les autres, entre deux séries, celle des reportata de l’enseignement oral (O) et celle des sources (F).

Avec des coefficients variables de certitude ou de probabilité, je compte récupérer de la sorte deux fragments certains de l’oral, deux fragments très probables, un fragment simplement probable, enfin deux sources certaines.

Dès les premiers textes, nous affrontons les trois principaux problèmes qui nous intéressent et cela, on l’a dit, dans une complexité plus grande qu’ailleurs.

    Le problème fondamental des rapports de l’écrit et de l’oral. Les limites entre l’un et l’autre sont parfois indécises, incertaines. Ce qui est sûr, c’est que l’oral, quand oral il y a, éclaire considérablement l’écrit, sorte de commentaire ou de résumé anticipé.
    Le problème de l’indépendance mutuelle de Dexippe et de Simplicius et de leur complémentarité. La question essentielle, souvent insoluble, est de savoir lequel des deux est le plus fidèle à la formulation de l’aporie orale ou de la source telle que les transmettait Porphyre, voire même le seul Jamblique. Le lecteur avisé s’apercevra sans peine que Simplicius ne peut vraiment dépendre de Dexippe ; il paraît ne jamais l’utiliser dans le corps de son ouvrage ; le nom n’apparaît qu’une seule fois, et cela dans la Préface, p. 2,25, où Simplicius énumère les commentateurs des Catégories, alors qu’ailleurs il n’a pas honte de citer fidèlement ses sources, notamment Porphyre et Jamblique.
    Enfin, le problème des sources de Plotin. Sources de l’oral ou de l’écrit ou de l’un et de l’autre. Ici même, par deux fois, un texte attribué par Simplicius à Plotin est attribué aussi, par lui, aux prédécesseurs de Plotin. Chez Dexippe, ce n’est pas le cas ici et ce sera toujours beaucoup plus rare.

Les deux seuls points vraiment fermes et solides – ce ne sera pas toujours le cas – sont : primo, que les apories sont nettement authentifiées, citées sous le nom de Plotin, tant par Dexippe que par Simplicius, lequel souvent, ailleurs, se contente d’écrire « quelques-uns », là même où nous savons pertinemment qu’il s’agit de Plotin. Secundo, qu’une partie au moins des apories, tout en étant sûrement plotiniennes, n’ont aucun parallèle dans les Ennéades et proviennent donc de l’oral. [introduction p. 120-122]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"799","_score":null,"_source":{"id":799,"authors_free":[{"id":1179,"entry_id":799,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":175,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Henry, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Henry","norm_person":{"id":175,"first_name":"Paul","last_name":"Henry","full_name":"Henry, Paul","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1180,"entry_id":799,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Les premi\u00e8res apories que Dexippe attribue explicitement \u00e0 Plotin traitent du nombre des cat\u00e9gories, mais plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment sous l\u2019aspect du rapport des cat\u00e9gories du monde intelligible \u00e0 celles du monde sensible. Chez Simplicius aussi ces apories sont explicitement attribu\u00e9es \u00e0 Plotin. D\u2019un monde \u00e0 l\u2019autre, les cat\u00e9gories sont-elles les m\u00eames ou diff\u00e9rentes, ou bien les unes sont-elles les m\u00eames, les autres diff\u00e9rentes ? Sont-elles en nombre \u00e9gal, plus nombreuses, moins nombreuses ? C\u2019est le probl\u00e8me pr\u00e9liminaire qu\u2019examine Plotin au chapitre 1 de son premier trait\u00e9 VI 1, au d\u00e9but du chapitre 2 sur la substance et, une troisi\u00e8me fois, au d\u00e9but du chapitre 5 de son troisi\u00e8me trait\u00e9, VI 3. Nos textes de base sont donc : VI 1,1,19-30 ; VI 1,2,1-8 ; VI 3,5,1-7, mais aussi VI 2,16,1-2 et VI 3,27,1-4.\r\n\r\nS\u2019y r\u00e9f\u00e8rent trois apories de Dexippe, mais l\u2019une sous trois formes diff\u00e9rentes \u2013 ce qui nous donne cinq petits textes \u2013 et deux longues pages de Simplicius, qui correspondent pour une part aux Enn\u00e9ades, pour une part aux textes de Dexippe, mais qui toutes deux associent le nom de Plotin \u00e0 celui de ses pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseurs. En outre, deux textes anonymes, l\u2019un de Dexippe, l\u2019autre de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nLes relations entre tous ces textes \u00e9tant fort compliqu\u00e9es, il est utile de les \u00e9num\u00e9rer ici, avec les sigles que je leur attribue, et dans l\u2019ordre o\u00f9 je les \u00e9tudie :\r\n\r\n 01 = Simpl. p. 73,15-28 (Plotin, Lucius et Nicostrate)\r\n 01b* = Dex. II 1 sommaire et aporie (anonymes) = Simpl. p. 73,15-16 (Plotin)\r\n 02 = Simpl. p. 73,25-27 (Plotin)\r\n 01a* = Dex. II 4 sommaire et aporie (Plotin)\r\n F1 = Simpl. p. 76,13-22 (Plotin et Nicostrate)\r\n F1 = Dex. II 2 aporie (dans le corps de l\u2019ouvrage) (Plotin)\r\n 01c = Dex. II 2 sommaire (Plotin)\r\n 01e = Dex. II 2 solution (Plotin), cf. Simpl. 76,22-77,4\r\n F2 = Dex. 138 solution (anonyme) = Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (anonyme)\r\n\r\nBien que, au d\u00e9but, ces distinctions paraissent compliqu\u00e9es, la suite montrera qu\u2019elles aident \u00e0 clarifier les questions.\r\n\r\nJe signale tout de suite que le grand texte attribu\u00e9 au \u00ab tr\u00e8s divin Plotin \u00bb par Simpl. p. 73,15-28 contient aussi ce que contiennent Dex. II 1, Dex. II 2 somm., et de nombreuses correspondances avec Dex. II 4.\r\n\r\nNous finirons notre chapitre par un texte tr\u00e8s court relatif au probl\u00e8me de l\u2019oppos\u00e9 du mouvement, le repos, auquel font allusion Enn. VI 3,27,4-5, ainsi que Dex. I 38 sol., p. 34,17-19 (\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) et Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2), et qui, faisant partie d\u2019une source composite, justifiera le sigle F2.\r\n\r\nLe tout est un chass\u00e9-crois\u00e9 de r\u00e9f\u00e9rences, un enchev\u00eatrement de textes, de correspondances et de non-correspondances entre l\u2019\u00e9crit, l\u2019oral, les sources, \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s inextricable, un des ensembles les plus complexes auxquels nous ayons jamais eu affaire.\r\n\r\nDans ce fouillis, je vais m\u2019efforcer d\u2019introduire un peu d\u2019ordre et de clart\u00e9. Patiemment, car il s\u2019agit bien d\u2019un jeu de patience, je r\u00e9partirai de mon mieux ces fragments, qui chevauchent les uns sur les autres, entre deux s\u00e9ries, celle des reportata de l\u2019enseignement oral (O) et celle des sources (F).\r\n\r\nAvec des coefficients variables de certitude ou de probabilit\u00e9, je compte r\u00e9cup\u00e9rer de la sorte deux fragments certains de l\u2019oral, deux fragments tr\u00e8s probables, un fragment simplement probable, enfin deux sources certaines.\r\n\r\nD\u00e8s les premiers textes, nous affrontons les trois principaux probl\u00e8mes qui nous int\u00e9ressent et cela, on l\u2019a dit, dans une complexit\u00e9 plus grande qu\u2019ailleurs.\r\n\r\n Le probl\u00e8me fondamental des rapports de l\u2019\u00e9crit et de l\u2019oral. Les limites entre l\u2019un et l\u2019autre sont parfois ind\u00e9cises, incertaines. Ce qui est s\u00fbr, c\u2019est que l\u2019oral, quand oral il y a, \u00e9claire consid\u00e9rablement l\u2019\u00e9crit, sorte de commentaire ou de r\u00e9sum\u00e9 anticip\u00e9.\r\n Le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019ind\u00e9pendance mutuelle de Dexippe et de Simplicius et de leur compl\u00e9mentarit\u00e9. La question essentielle, souvent insoluble, est de savoir lequel des deux est le plus fid\u00e8le \u00e0 la formulation de l\u2019aporie orale ou de la source telle que les transmettait Porphyre, voire m\u00eame le seul Jamblique. Le lecteur avis\u00e9 s\u2019apercevra sans peine que Simplicius ne peut vraiment d\u00e9pendre de Dexippe ; il para\u00eet ne jamais l\u2019utiliser dans le corps de son ouvrage ; le nom n\u2019appara\u00eet qu\u2019une seule fois, et cela dans la Pr\u00e9face, p. 2,25, o\u00f9 Simplicius \u00e9num\u00e8re les commentateurs des Cat\u00e9gories, alors qu\u2019ailleurs il n\u2019a pas honte de citer fid\u00e8lement ses sources, notamment Porphyre et Jamblique.\r\n Enfin, le probl\u00e8me des sources de Plotin. Sources de l\u2019oral ou de l\u2019\u00e9crit ou de l\u2019un et de l\u2019autre. Ici m\u00eame, par deux fois, un texte attribu\u00e9 par Simplicius \u00e0 Plotin est attribu\u00e9 aussi, par lui, aux pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseurs de Plotin. Chez Dexippe, ce n\u2019est pas le cas ici et ce sera toujours beaucoup plus rare.\r\n\r\nLes deux seuls points vraiment fermes et solides \u2013 ce ne sera pas toujours le cas \u2013 sont : primo, que les apories sont nettement authentifi\u00e9es, cit\u00e9es sous le nom de Plotin, tant par Dexippe que par Simplicius, lequel souvent, ailleurs, se contente d\u2019\u00e9crire \u00ab quelques-uns \u00bb, l\u00e0 m\u00eame o\u00f9 nous savons pertinemment qu\u2019il s\u2019agit de Plotin. Secundo, qu\u2019une partie au moins des apories, tout en \u00e9tant s\u00fbrement plotiniennes, n\u2019ont aucun parall\u00e8le dans les Enn\u00e9ades et proviennent donc de l\u2019oral. [introduction p. 120-122]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kSddLNtzgHnzFEv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":175,"full_name":"Henry, Paul","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":799,"section_of":189,"pages":"120-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote"]}

Aristote: quantité et contrariété. Une critique de l’école d’Oxford, 1980
By: O'Brien, Denis, Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Aristote: quantité et contrariété. Une critique de l’école d’Oxford
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1980
Published in Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique
Pages 89-165
Categories no categories
Author(s) O'Brien, Denis
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)
Avant-propos
L’école d’Oxford et le commentaire du Professeur J. L. Ackrill sur les Catégories d’Aristote.
Les divisions du texte — un point de repère.
Objet de l’argument (5b11-15)

    Distinction entre propriétés et possesseurs de propriétés.
    Distinction entre l’aire et la surface, le volume et le corps.
    Distinction entre quantités déterminées et quantités indéterminées.

Le premier argument (5b15-29)

    La grandeur relative et la grandeur en soi.
    Les nombreux et les peu nombreux : motif de la double comparaison.
    Commentaire de Simplicius : les deux formes du paradoxe.
    Commentaire de Simplicius : la grandeur relative et la grandeur absolue.
    Le doublet (5b26-29).

Le deuxième argument (5b30-33)

    Rubrique liminaire : une même chose peut-elle se rencontrer dans plus d’une catégorie ?
    Les relatifs peuvent-ils avoir des contraires ?
    Les deux groupes de relatifs : ceux qui peuvent avoir un contraire, ceux qui ne peuvent pas avoir de contraire.
    Relation et contrariété : la prémisse sous-jacente de l’argument.

Le troisième argument (5b33-6a11)

    Introduction à l’argument (5b33-35).
    Première partie de l’argument : une chose admettra deux contraires à la fois (5b35-6a4).
    Seconde partie de l’argument : les choses contraires seront, à elles-mêmes, contraires (6a4-8).
    Conclusion de l’argument (6a8-11).

Traduction-Paraphrase du chapitre six des Catégories (4b20-6a35) [structure by the author]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1099","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1099,"authors_free":[{"id":1661,"entry_id":1099,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O'Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O\u2019Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1662,"entry_id":1099,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristote: quantit\u00e9 et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9. Une critique de l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford","main_title":{"title":"Aristote: quantit\u00e9 et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9. Une critique de l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford"},"abstract":"Avant-propos\r\nL\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford et le commentaire du Professeur J. L. Ackrill sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote.\r\nLes divisions du texte \u2014 un point de rep\u00e8re.\r\nObjet de l\u2019argument (5b11-15)\r\n\r\n Distinction entre propri\u00e9t\u00e9s et possesseurs de propri\u00e9t\u00e9s.\r\n Distinction entre l\u2019aire et la surface, le volume et le corps.\r\n Distinction entre quantit\u00e9s d\u00e9termin\u00e9es et quantit\u00e9s ind\u00e9termin\u00e9es.\r\n\r\nLe premier argument (5b15-29)\r\n\r\n La grandeur relative et la grandeur en soi.\r\n Les nombreux et les peu nombreux : motif de la double comparaison.\r\n Commentaire de Simplicius : les deux formes du paradoxe.\r\n Commentaire de Simplicius : la grandeur relative et la grandeur absolue.\r\n Le doublet (5b26-29).\r\n\r\nLe deuxi\u00e8me argument (5b30-33)\r\n\r\n Rubrique liminaire : une m\u00eame chose peut-elle se rencontrer dans plus d\u2019une cat\u00e9gorie ?\r\n Les relatifs peuvent-ils avoir des contraires ?\r\n Les deux groupes de relatifs : ceux qui peuvent avoir un contraire, ceux qui ne peuvent pas avoir de contraire.\r\n Relation et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 : la pr\u00e9misse sous-jacente de l\u2019argument.\r\n\r\nLe troisi\u00e8me argument (5b33-6a11)\r\n\r\n Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019argument (5b33-35).\r\n Premi\u00e8re partie de l\u2019argument : une chose admettra deux contraires \u00e0 la fois (5b35-6a4).\r\n Seconde partie de l\u2019argument : les choses contraires seront, \u00e0 elles-m\u00eames, contraires (6a4-8).\r\n Conclusion de l\u2019argument (6a8-11).\r\n\r\nTraduction-Paraphrase du chapitre six des Cat\u00e9gories (4b20-6a35) [structure by the author]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fSSFgeHBQMgQH3p","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1099,"section_of":302,"pages":"89-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristote: quantit\u00e9 et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9. Une critique de l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford"]}

Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule, 1985
By: Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.), Marian Plezia (Ed.), W. J. Verdenius (Ed.), Jean Pépin (Ed.)
Title Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1985
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Volume 1
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen , Marian Plezia , W. J. Verdenius , Jean Pépin
Translator(s)
Der hier  vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das 
Aristoteles  und dem  Aristotelismus  gewidmet  ist,  enthält  31 Origi-
nalbeiträge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. 
Kommentierung,  Uberlieferung  und Nachleben des  Aristoteles bil-
den  das  Thema  des  zweiten  Bandes,  der  so  bald  als  möglich  folgen  
wird.  [Vorwort]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"190","_score":null,"_source":{"id":190,"authors_free":[{"id":1885,"entry_id":190,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2771,"entry_id":190,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Marian Plezia","free_first_name":"Marian","free_last_name":"Plezia","norm_person":null},{"id":2772,"entry_id":190,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"W. J. Verdenius","free_first_name":"W. J.","free_last_name":"Verdenius","norm_person":null},{"id":2773,"entry_id":190,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jean P\u00e9pin","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","main_title":{"title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule"},"abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","btype":4,"date":"1985","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule"]}

Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben, 1987
By: Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.), H. J. Lulofs (Ed.), Jutta Kollesch (Ed.), Vivian Nutton (Ed.)
Title Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Type Edited Book
Language German
Date 1987
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet
Volume 2
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen , H. J. Lulofs , Jutta Kollesch , Vivian Nutton
Translator(s)
Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beiträge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefaßt, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a ß diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Glücksfall mag gelten, daß einige Beiträge sich in idealer Weise ergänzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik Λ 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios über Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen können. Dieses Bemühen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa für De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, für die 
Kategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstveröffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. 
Von den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch über Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier veröffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry später einmal integriert werden; daraus erklären sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt über die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enthält im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Ergänzungen zu seiner grundlegenden „Bibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600".  [Vorwort p. V-VI]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"189","_score":null,"_source":{"id":189,"authors_free":[{"id":245,"entry_id":189,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2768,"entry_id":189,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"H. J. Lulofs","free_first_name":"H. J.","free_last_name":"Lulofs","norm_person":null},{"id":2769,"entry_id":189,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jutta Kollesch","free_first_name":"Jutta","free_last_name":"Kollesch","norm_person":null},{"id":2770,"entry_id":189,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vivian Nutton","free_first_name":"Vivian","free_last_name":"Nutton","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","main_title":{"title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben"},"abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","btype":4,"date":"1987","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben"]}

Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung, 1983
By: Irmscher, Johannes (Ed.), Müller, Reimar (Ed.)
Title Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung
Type Edited Book
Language German
Date 1983
Publication Place Berlin
Publisher Akademie-Verlag
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Irmscher, Johannes , Müller, Reimar
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"325","_score":null,"_source":{"id":325,"authors_free":[{"id":414,"entry_id":325,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":352,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","free_first_name":"Johannes","free_last_name":"Irmscher","norm_person":{"id":352,"first_name":"Johannes","last_name":"Irmscher","full_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119489201","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":415,"entry_id":325,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":353,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","free_first_name":"Reimar","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":353,"first_name":"Reimar","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/106717707","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung","main_title":{"title":"Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1983","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A1XXLVpd3w2XvXY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":352,"full_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":353,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":325,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Akademie-Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung"]}

Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD, 1987
By: Gottschalk, Hans B., Haase, Wolfgang (Ed.), Temporini, Hildegard (Ed.)
Title Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie
Pages 1079-1174
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gottschalk, Hans B.
Editor(s) Haase, Wolfgang , Temporini, Hildegard
Translator(s)
It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle’s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle’s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric’ writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin.

We may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle’s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school’s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers.

This dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric’ and the 'esoteric,’ to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius’ source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric’ (or 'acroamatic’) and 'exoteric’ writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric’ works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school.

The same continuity is found in the school’s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus’ edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle’s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle’s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics.

There is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle’s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age.

All this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle’s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents.

The specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle’s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle’s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas.

New developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle’s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle’s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle’s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints.

At this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy.

There is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked—a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann’s sense of the word, of Aristotle’s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle’s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher’s philosopher.
[conclusion p. 1172-1174]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1332","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1332,"authors_free":[{"id":1965,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2382,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2383,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":453,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","free_first_name":"Hildegard","free_last_name":"Temporini","norm_person":{"id":453,"first_name":"Hildegard","last_name":"Temporini","full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754013","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD"},"abstract":"It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle\u2019s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle\u2019s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric\u2019 writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin.\r\n\r\nWe may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school\u2019s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers.\r\n\r\nThis dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric\u2019 and the 'esoteric,\u2019 to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius\u2019 source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric\u2019 (or 'acroamatic\u2019) and 'exoteric\u2019 writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric\u2019 works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school.\r\n\r\nThe same continuity is found in the school\u2019s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus\u2019 edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics.\r\n\r\nThere is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle\u2019s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age.\r\n\r\nAll this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents.\r\n\r\nThe specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle\u2019s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas.\r\n\r\nNew developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle\u2019s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle\u2019s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle\u2019s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints.\r\n\r\nAt this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy.\r\n\r\nThere is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked\u2014a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann\u2019s sense of the word, of Aristotle\u2019s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle\u2019s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher\u2019s philosopher.\r\n[conclusion p. 1172-1174]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FPwm868kRTy5Ier","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":453,"full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1332,"section_of":335,"pages":"1079-1174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD"]}

Aristotelica: Mélanges offerts à Marcel de Corte, 1985
By: Motte, André (Ed.), Rutten, Christian (Ed.)
Title Aristotelica: Mélanges offerts à Marcel de Corte
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1985
Publication Place Bruxelles – Liège
Publisher Éditions Ousia – Presses universitaires
Series Cahiers de philosophie ancienne
Volume 3
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Motte, André , Rutten, Christian
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"297","_score":null,"_source":{"id":297,"authors_free":[{"id":2114,"entry_id":297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":468,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Motte, Andre\u0301","free_first_name":"Andre\u0301","free_last_name":"Motte","norm_person":{"id":468,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Motte","full_name":"Motte, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124510663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2408,"entry_id":297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":469,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rutten, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Rutten","norm_person":{"id":469,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Rutten","full_name":"Rutten, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119515512","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelica: M\u00e9langes offerts \u00e0 Marcel de Corte","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelica: M\u00e9langes offerts \u00e0 Marcel de Corte"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1985","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vbTKdtbzJ5KxKIX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":468,"full_name":"Motte, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":469,"full_name":"Rutten, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":297,"pubplace":"Bruxelles \u2013 Lie\u0300ge","publisher":"E\u0301ditions Ousia \u2013 Presses universitaires","series":"Cahiers de philosophie ancienne","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Aristotelica: M\u00e9langes offerts \u00e0 Marcel de Corte"]}

Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence, 1990
By: Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1990
Publication Place London
Publisher Bloomsbury Academic
Edition No. 2
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told 
at book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some 
of  the  classic  articles  translated  into  English  or  revised  and  on  the  very  latest  
research. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar 
even to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators 
has been illustrated elsewhere.  1   Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as 
to  set  out  the  background  of  the  commentary  tradition  against  which  further  
philosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. 
 Th e  importance  of  the  commentators  lies  partly  in  their  representing  the  
thought  and  classroom  teaching  of  the  Aristotelian  and  Neoplatonist  schools,  
partly  in  the  panorama  they  provide  of  the  1100  years  of  Ancient  Greek  
philosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical 
works. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the 
chapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due 
partly  to  their  preserving  anti-Aristotelian  material  which  helped  to  inspire  
medieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle 
transformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian 
Church. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in 
the philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers.  [authors abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"200","_score":null,"_source":{"id":200,"authors_free":[{"id":2155,"entry_id":200,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence"},"abstract":"The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told \r\nat book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some \r\nof the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest \r\nresearch. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar \r\neven to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators \r\nhas been illustrated elsewhere. 1 Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as \r\nto set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further \r\nphilosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. \r\n Th e importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the \r\nthought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, \r\npartly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek \r\nphilosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical \r\nworks. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the \r\nchapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due \r\npartly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire \r\nmedieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle \r\ntransformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian \r\nChurch. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in \r\nthe philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers. [authors abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":200,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence"]}

Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence, 1990
By: Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1990
Publication Place London
Publisher Duckworth
Edition No. 1
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.

The importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1453","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1453,"authors_free":[{"id":2457,"entry_id":1453,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence"},"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence"]}

Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity, 1981
By: Mueller, Ian, Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs Nikolaou (Ed.)
Title Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1981
Published in Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978
Pages 179-182
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mueller, Ian
Editor(s) Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs Nikolaou
Translator(s)
Aristotle was the first not only to distinguish between potential and actual infinity but also to insist that potential infinity alone is enough for mathematics thus initiating an issue still central to the philosophy of mathematics. Modern scholarship, however, has attacked Aristotle's thesis because, according to the received doctrine, it does not square with Euclidean geometry and it also seems to contravene Aristotle's belief in the finitude of the physical universe. This monograph, the first thorough study of the issue, puts Aristotle's views on infinity in the proper perspective. Through a close study of the relevant Aristotelian passages it shows that the Stagirite's theory of infinity forms a well argued philosophical position which does not bear on his belief in a finite cosmos and does not undermine the Euclidean nature of geometry. The monograph draws a much more positive picture of Aristotle's views and reaffirms his disputed stature as a serious philosopher of mathematics. This innovative and stimulating contribution will be essential reading to a wide range of scholars, including classicists, philosophers of science and mathematics as well as historians of ideas. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"63","_score":null,"_source":{"id":63,"authors_free":[{"id":71,"entry_id":63,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2505,"entry_id":63,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s Nikolaou","free_first_name":"I\u014dann\u0113s Nikolaou","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity"},"abstract":"Aristotle was the first not only to distinguish between potential and actual infinity but also to insist that potential infinity alone is enough for mathematics thus initiating an issue still central to the philosophy of mathematics. Modern scholarship, however, has attacked Aristotle's thesis because, according to the received doctrine, it does not square with Euclidean geometry and it also seems to contravene Aristotle's belief in the finitude of the physical universe. This monograph, the first thorough study of the issue, puts Aristotle's views on infinity in the proper perspective. Through a close study of the relevant Aristotelian passages it shows that the Stagirite's theory of infinity forms a well argued philosophical position which does not bear on his belief in a finite cosmos and does not undermine the Euclidean nature of geometry. The monograph draws a much more positive picture of Aristotle's views and reaffirms his disputed stature as a serious philosopher of mathematics. This innovative and stimulating contribution will be essential reading to a wide range of scholars, including classicists, philosophers of science and mathematics as well as historians of ideas. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XpR1jO7FPHTJmR4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":63,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"International Association for Greek Philosophy","series":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Ath\u00e8nes, Minist\u00e8re de la culture et des sciences","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":63,"section_of":1459,"pages":"179-182","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1459,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O3DQotq4JIjFp7W","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity"]}

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie, 1987
By: Haase, Wolfgang (Ed.)
Title Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1987
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher De Gruyter
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Haase, Wolfgang
Translator(s)
AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER RÖMISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken römischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenwärtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeiträgen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:
I. Von den Anfängen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik
II. Principat
III. Spätantike
Jeder der drei Teile umfaßt sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache Überschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. Künste.

ANRW ist ein handbuchartiges Übersichtswerk zu den römischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschluß der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beiträgen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, französischer oder italienischer Sprache.

Zum Mitarbeiterstab gehören rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 Ländern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend gehören die Autoren hauptsächlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.

In Vorbereitung sind:
Teil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung
Teil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"335","_score":null,"_source":{"id":335,"authors_free":[{"id":429,"entry_id":335,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","main_title":{"title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie"},"abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1987","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie"]}

Aurore, Éros et Ananké autour des dieux Parménidiens (f. 12-f. 13), 1985
By: Frère, Jean
Title Aurore, Éros et Ananké autour des dieux Parménidiens (f. 12-f. 13)
Type Article
Language French
Date 1985
Journal Les Études philosophiques
Volume 4
Pages 459-470
Categories no categories
Author(s) Frère, Jean
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Deux textes de Platon dans Le Banquet et un d'Aristote dans La Métaphysique commentent ce passage de Parménide sur Éros. Dans Le Banquet, en 195a, Agathon dit : « Je déclare que c'est Éros le plus jeune des dieux... ; qu'inversement ces antiques divinités qu'énoncent sur les dieux Hésiode et Parménide appartiendraient à la Nécessité et non pas à l'Amour. » Et en 178a, Phèdre s'exprimait ainsi : « Quant à Parménide, voici ce qu'il dit de la génération : le premier de tous les dieux dont s'avisa [la Déesse], ce fut l'Amour. »

Pour ce qui est d'Aristote, au livre A, chapitre 4, de La Métaphysique, examinant la thèse des penseurs qui, tel Anaxagore, firent du « la fois la cause de la beauté et la cause du mouvement des êtres », Aristote rapproche à son tour Hésiode et Parménide comme penseurs qui ont posé l'Amour ou le Désir pour principes des êtres ; Aristote cite alors le vers que citait Le Banquet en 178a, vers qui constitue le fragment 13 du poème de Parménide. Ainsi, les deux témoignages de Platon et d'Aristote s'accordent-ils : dans le panthéon parménidien, Anankè est l'origine ; en provient l'Amour, Éros, lequel domine les autres dieux.

Dans le commentaire de La Physique d'Aristote, Simplicius apporte à son tour des textes et des indications concernant Anankè et Éros. C'est grâce à ces passages de Simplicius que les éditeurs de Parménide ont ordonné plusieurs fragments de la seconde partie du poème (f. 9 et suiv.). Cependant, l'ordonnance des fragments ici retenue par la plupart des éditeurs, si l'on y apporte quelque attention, semble loin de s'imposer. Relisant de près le texte de Simplicius, nous voudrions ici dégager conjointement plusieurs thèmes.

D'abord, en ce qui concerne Simplicius, nous voudrions apporter des précisions sur sa technique de citation des fragments. À partir de là, nous pourrions envisager une nouvelle structuration des fragments portant sur Anankè et Éros. Enfin, nous pourrions ainsi essayer de mieux dégager certains aspects de la place du divin dans l'œuvre parménidienne. [introduction p. 460]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"593","_score":null,"_source":{"id":593,"authors_free":[{"id":844,"entry_id":593,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":101,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fr\u00e8re, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"Fr\u00e8re","norm_person":{"id":101,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"Fr\u00e8re","full_name":"Fr\u00e8re, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130051187","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aurore, \u00c9ros et Anank\u00e9 autour des dieux Parm\u00e9nidiens (f. 12-f. 13)","main_title":{"title":"Aurore, \u00c9ros et Anank\u00e9 autour des dieux Parm\u00e9nidiens (f. 12-f. 13)"},"abstract":"Deux textes de Platon dans Le Banquet et un d'Aristote dans La M\u00e9taphysique commentent ce passage de Parm\u00e9nide sur \u00c9ros. Dans Le Banquet, en 195a, Agathon dit : \u00ab Je d\u00e9clare que c'est \u00c9ros le plus jeune des dieux... ; qu'inversement ces antiques divinit\u00e9s qu'\u00e9noncent sur les dieux H\u00e9siode et Parm\u00e9nide appartiendraient \u00e0 la N\u00e9cessit\u00e9 et non pas \u00e0 l'Amour. \u00bb Et en 178a, Ph\u00e8dre s'exprimait ainsi : \u00ab Quant \u00e0 Parm\u00e9nide, voici ce qu'il dit de la g\u00e9n\u00e9ration : le premier de tous les dieux dont s'avisa [la D\u00e9esse], ce fut l'Amour. \u00bb\r\n\r\nPour ce qui est d'Aristote, au livre A, chapitre 4, de La M\u00e9taphysique, examinant la th\u00e8se des penseurs qui, tel Anaxagore, firent du \u00ab la fois la cause de la beaut\u00e9 et la cause du mouvement des \u00eatres \u00bb, Aristote rapproche \u00e0 son tour H\u00e9siode et Parm\u00e9nide comme penseurs qui ont pos\u00e9 l'Amour ou le D\u00e9sir pour principes des \u00eatres ; Aristote cite alors le vers que citait Le Banquet en 178a, vers qui constitue le fragment 13 du po\u00e8me de Parm\u00e9nide. Ainsi, les deux t\u00e9moignages de Platon et d'Aristote s'accordent-ils : dans le panth\u00e9on parm\u00e9nidien, Anank\u00e8 est l'origine ; en provient l'Amour, \u00c9ros, lequel domine les autres dieux.\r\n\r\nDans le commentaire de La Physique d'Aristote, Simplicius apporte \u00e0 son tour des textes et des indications concernant Anank\u00e8 et \u00c9ros. C'est gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 ces passages de Simplicius que les \u00e9diteurs de Parm\u00e9nide ont ordonn\u00e9 plusieurs fragments de la seconde partie du po\u00e8me (f. 9 et suiv.). Cependant, l'ordonnance des fragments ici retenue par la plupart des \u00e9diteurs, si l'on y apporte quelque attention, semble loin de s'imposer. Relisant de pr\u00e8s le texte de Simplicius, nous voudrions ici d\u00e9gager conjointement plusieurs th\u00e8mes.\r\n\r\nD'abord, en ce qui concerne Simplicius, nous voudrions apporter des pr\u00e9cisions sur sa technique de citation des fragments. \u00c0 partir de l\u00e0, nous pourrions envisager une nouvelle structuration des fragments portant sur Anank\u00e8 et \u00c9ros. Enfin, nous pourrions ainsi essayer de mieux d\u00e9gager certains aspects de la place du divin dans l'\u0153uvre parm\u00e9nidienne. [introduction p. 460]","btype":3,"date":"1985","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RFpfl1LBytLVPZJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":101,"full_name":"Fr\u00e8re, Jean","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":593,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":" 459-470"}},"sort":["Aurore, \u00c9ros et Anank\u00e9 autour des dieux Parm\u00e9nidiens (f. 12-f. 13)"]}

Boethus' Psychology and the Neoplatonists, 1986
By: Gottschalk, Hans B.
Title Boethus' Psychology and the Neoplatonists
Type Article
Language English
Date 1986
Journal Phronesis
Volume 31
Issue 3
Pages 243-257
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gottschalk, Hans B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Three  writers  of  late  antiquity,  all  of  them  Neoplatonists, refer  to  the psychological  doctrine  of  a certain  Boethus. Several  philosophers  of  that name  are  known,  and the  fragments have  been  variously assigned  to  the Stoic,  Boethus  of Sidon, who lived in the middle of the second century BC, and his Peripatetic namesake,  active about a century later. ' The purpose of this article is to  see  what exactly we  can learn about  this thinker from the extant fragments and then  to determine  which of  the  various Boethi  he  is most  likely  to  have  been. [introduction, p. 243]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1331","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1331,"authors_free":[{"id":1964,"entry_id":1331,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk,","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Boethus' Psychology and the Neoplatonists","main_title":{"title":"Boethus' Psychology and the Neoplatonists"},"abstract":"Three writers of late antiquity, all of them Neoplatonists, refer to the psychological doctrine of a certain Boethus. Several philosophers of that name are known, and the fragments have been variously assigned to the Stoic, Boethus of Sidon, who lived in the middle of the second century BC, and his Peripatetic namesake, active about a century later. ' The purpose of this article is to see what exactly we can learn about this thinker from the extant fragments and then to determine which of the various Boethi he is most likely to have been. [introduction, p. 243]","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5lu8RgGIGt7Wnhe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1331,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"31","issue":"3","pages":"243-257"}},"sort":["Boethus' Psychology and the Neoplatonists"]}

Catégories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du “skopos” du traité aristotélicien des “Catégories”, 1987
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Catégories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du “skopos” du traité aristotélicien des “Catégories”
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 61-90
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories is the first among three commentaries left by the renowned Neoplatonic philosopher. This commentary holds a significant place in the study of Aristotle's works, as it marks the beginning of the reading of Aristotle's oeuvre from a spiritual perspective. The prayer at the end of Simplicius' commentary highlights the transformative power of studying Aristotle's Categories, allowing the soul to ascend to higher knowledge and seek ultimate happiness. Simplicius' other commentaries, such as his work on Epictetus and De Caelo, similarly express the journey of spiritual conversion and progressive ascension to higher realities within the Neoplatonic spiritual framework. The Neoplatonic curriculum involved an ethical initiation, leading to the study of Aristotle's works and culminating in the study of Plato's Timaeus and Parmenides. Overall, Simplicius' exegesis of Aristotle's Categories reveals the profound spiritual significance and transformative potential of philosophical studies within the Neoplatonic tradition. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"709","_score":null,"_source":{"id":709,"authors_free":[{"id":1057,"entry_id":709,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1058,"entry_id":709,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cat\u00e9gories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du \u201cskopos\u201d du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des \u201cCat\u00e9gories\u201d","main_title":{"title":"Cat\u00e9gories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du \u201cskopos\u201d du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des \u201cCat\u00e9gories\u201d"},"abstract":"Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories is the first among three commentaries left by the renowned Neoplatonic philosopher. This commentary holds a significant place in the study of Aristotle's works, as it marks the beginning of the reading of Aristotle's oeuvre from a spiritual perspective. The prayer at the end of Simplicius' commentary highlights the transformative power of studying Aristotle's Categories, allowing the soul to ascend to higher knowledge and seek ultimate happiness. Simplicius' other commentaries, such as his work on Epictetus and De Caelo, similarly express the journey of spiritual conversion and progressive ascension to higher realities within the Neoplatonic spiritual framework. The Neoplatonic curriculum involved an ethical initiation, leading to the study of Aristotle's works and culminating in the study of Plato's Timaeus and Parmenides. Overall, Simplicius' exegesis of Aristotle's Categories reveals the profound spiritual significance and transformative potential of philosophical studies within the Neoplatonic tradition. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z4JuOtqVWGpQ7Ef","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":709,"section_of":171,"pages":"61-90","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Cat\u00e9gories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du \u201cskopos\u201d du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des \u201cCat\u00e9gories\u201d"]}

Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos, 1989
By: Fortenbaugh, William. W. (Ed.), Steinmetz, Peter (Ed.)
Title Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1989
Publication Place London
Publisher Routledge
Series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities
Volume 4
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Steinmetz, Peter
Translator(s)
Cicero is best known for his political speeches. His Catilinarian orations are regularly studied in third or fourth year Latin; his self-proclaimed role as savior of the Republic is much discussed in courses on Roman history. But, however fascinating such material may be, there is another side to Cicero which is equally important and only now receiving the attention it deserves. This is Cicero's interest in Hellenistic thought. As a young man he studied philosophy in Greece; throughout his life he maintained a keen interest in intellectual history; and during periods of political inactivity - especially in his last years as the Republic collapsed - he wrote treatises that today are invaluable sources for our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, including the School of Aristotle.

The essays collected in this volume deal with these treatises and in particular with Cicero's knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy. They ask such questions as: Did Cicero-know Aristotle first hand, or was the corpus Aristotelicum unavailable to him and his contemporaries? Did Cicero have access to the writings of Theophrastus, and in general did he know the post-Aristotelians whose works are all but lost to us? When Cicero reports the views of early philosophers, is he a reliable witness, and is he conveying important information? These and other fundamental questions are asked with special reference to traditional areas of Greek thought: logic and rhetoric, politics and ethics, physics, psychology, and theology. The answers are various, but the overall impression is clear: Cicero himself was a highly intelligent, well educated Roman, whose treatises contain significant material. Scholars working on Peripatetic thought and on the Hellenistic period as a whole cannot afford to ignore them.

This fourth volume in the Rutgers University Studies in Classic Humanities series deals with Cicero, orator and writer of the late Roman Republic. Interest in Cicero arose out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking based at Rutgers dedicated to collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus. This collection will be of value to philologists, classicists, philosophers, as well as those interested in the history of science. [official abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"334","_score":null,"_source":{"id":334,"authors_free":[{"id":427,"entry_id":334,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William. W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":428,"entry_id":334,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":378,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Steinmetz","norm_person":{"id":378,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Steinmetz","full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11891913X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos","main_title":{"title":"Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos"},"abstract":"Cicero is best known for his political speeches. His Catilinarian orations are regularly studied in third or fourth year Latin; his self-proclaimed role as savior of the Republic is much discussed in courses on Roman history. But, however fascinating such material may be, there is another side to Cicero which is equally important and only now receiving the attention it deserves. This is Cicero's interest in Hellenistic thought. As a young man he studied philosophy in Greece; throughout his life he maintained a keen interest in intellectual history; and during periods of political inactivity - especially in his last years as the Republic collapsed - he wrote treatises that today are invaluable sources for our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, including the School of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe essays collected in this volume deal with these treatises and in particular with Cicero's knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy. They ask such questions as: Did Cicero-know Aristotle first hand, or was the corpus Aristotelicum unavailable to him and his contemporaries? Did Cicero have access to the writings of Theophrastus, and in general did he know the post-Aristotelians whose works are all but lost to us? When Cicero reports the views of early philosophers, is he a reliable witness, and is he conveying important information? These and other fundamental questions are asked with special reference to traditional areas of Greek thought: logic and rhetoric, politics and ethics, physics, psychology, and theology. The answers are various, but the overall impression is clear: Cicero himself was a highly intelligent, well educated Roman, whose treatises contain significant material. Scholars working on Peripatetic thought and on the Hellenistic period as a whole cannot afford to ignore them.\r\n\r\nThis fourth volume in the Rutgers University Studies in Classic Humanities series deals with Cicero, orator and writer of the late Roman Republic. Interest in Cicero arose out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking based at Rutgers dedicated to collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus. This collection will be of value to philologists, classicists, philosophers, as well as those interested in the history of science. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1989","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":378,"full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":334,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos"]}

Colloque international sur la vie, l'œuvre et la survie de Simplicius, 1986
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut
Title Colloque international sur la vie, l'œuvre et la survie de Simplicius
Type Article
Language German
Date 1986
Journal Gnomon
Volume 58
Issue 2
Pages 191-192
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Vom 28. September bis zum 1. Oktober 1985 fand in Paris in der Fondation Hugot du Collège de France ein internationales Colloquium statt, das zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie und der Geschichte der Philosophie den neuplatonischen Philosophen Simplikios zum Gegenstand hatte. Das Ziel des Colloquiums war es, einen ersten Gedankenaustausch derjenigen, nicht sehr zahlreichen, Wissenschaftler zu ermöglichen, die etwa seit einem Jahrzehnt begonnen haben, das philosophische Denken des Simplikios systematisch zu erfassen, gesicherte Text grundlagen durch die Erstellung neuer kritischer Editionen zu liefern und die Texte selbst durch Übersetzungen einem weiteren, philosophisch interessierten Publikum zugänglich zu machen. 

{"_index":"sire","_id":"584","_score":null,"_source":{"id":584,"authors_free":[{"id":828,"entry_id":584,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Colloque international sur la vie, l'\u0153uvre et la survie de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Colloque international sur la vie, l'\u0153uvre et la survie de Simplicius"},"abstract":"Vom 28. September bis zum 1. Oktober 1985 fand in Paris in der Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France ein internationales Colloquium statt, das zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie und der Geschichte der Philosophie den neuplatonischen Philosophen Simplikios zum Gegenstand hatte. Das Ziel des Colloquiums war es, einen ersten Gedankenaustausch derjenigen, nicht sehr zahlreichen, Wissenschaftler zu erm\u00f6glichen, die etwa seit einem Jahrzehnt begonnen haben, das philosophische Denken des Simplikios systematisch zu erfassen, gesicherte Text grundlagen durch die Erstellung neuer kritischer Editionen zu liefern und die Texte selbst durch \u00dcbersetzungen einem weiteren, philosophisch interessierten Publikum zug\u00e4nglich zu machen. ","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AUBZDJhIvjp1dxV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":584,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Gnomon","volume":"58","issue":"2","pages":"191-192"}},"sort":["Colloque international sur la vie, l'\u0153uvre et la survie de Simplicius"]}

Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi. A study of Post-Aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies. Vol. 1 The Greek Tradition, 1981
By: Ebbesen, S
Title Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi. A study of Post-Aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies. Vol. 1 The Greek Tradition
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1981
Publication Place Leiden
Publisher Brill
Categories no categories
Author(s) Ebbesen, S
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
About thirteen years ago when I was preparing an edition of some Latin 13th century quaestiones on the Sophistici Elenchi, I discovered some puzzling references to a commentary
by "Alexander", obviously a Greek. He appeared to have been a very important man to the
Westerners, for often he was simply called 'Commentator', a title reserved in other contexts for Averroes.
This discovery gave rise to the questions,(!) Who was Alexander? (2) Are there more references to him in other Latin texts? (3) Is his work extant in Latin? (4) Is it extant in Greek?
Re 1 At first I thought he must be Alexander of Aphrodisias. Now I do not know how to answer the question.
Re 2 I soon found that Minio-Paluello and De Rijk had already signalled some other references to Alexander.
Re 3 My first investigations indicated the answer would be no, and I still have not found the text in any manuscript. 
Re 4 My early research indicated the answer would be no, but that extant Greek scholia were often comparable to the Latin quotations of Alexander.
The preliminary probings suggested that a search for more Latin references to Alexander and an inquiry into the Greek scholia on the Elenchi might throw light on the origins of Western scholasticism and at the same time prove the existence of a Byzantine scholasticism comparable to that of Western Europe in the High Middle Ages. A systematic search for more fragments of the Latin translation of Alexanders's commentary resulted in the collection that figures as Vol. II, Part 2, of this study.
Studying the Greek scholia I soon realized that they could not be used for any serious purpose as long as elementary questions of dating and attribution had not been solved. Trying to find the answer to such questions, I found that investigating the whole manuscript tradition
was inescapable. The results of that investigation are presented in Vol. 1 chapter V and the appendices (in Vol. III).
Reading the Greek scholia I became convinced that Byzantine scholasticism never produced results comparable to those of its Western counterpart; but, on the other hand, a study of the late ancient and medieval Greek scholastic tradition could, indeed, throw light on the
origins of Western logic.
The results of my investigations are presented partly in the notes on "Alexander's" fragments (in Vol. Ill), partly in a series of essays on central problems (Vol. I ch.IV).
Vol. I chapters I-II contain sketches of pre-scholastic theories of fallacies, some of which were to influence the scholastics, whereas chapter III introduces scholasticism.
As both Vol. I and Vol. III discuss Greek texts that have never been printed, I have collected a number of such texts in Vol. II, editing also Galen's De captionibus because the earlier editions are no longer satisfactory.
Chapters I through W of Vol. I all have a speculative character. I have tried to rein in my imagination, but I may not always have achieved my aim. I feel sure I have misunderstood the old philosophers on several points. Perhaps it can serve as an excuse that most of the problems I deal with have not been investigated before. If there are fundamental errors in chapter V, the consequences for the rest of 'Commentators and Commentaries' will be serious, if not disastrous. I trust, however, that my results concerning the Byzantine tradition are
essentially correct. [preface]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"34","_score":null,"_source":{"id":34,"authors_free":[{"id":40,"entry_id":34,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ebbesen, S","free_first_name":"S","free_last_name":"Ebbesen","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi. A study of Post-Aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies. Vol. 1 The Greek Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi. A study of Post-Aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies. Vol. 1 The Greek Tradition"},"abstract":"About thirteen years ago when I was preparing an edition of some Latin 13th century quaestiones on the Sophistici Elenchi, I discovered some puzzling references to a commentary\r\nby \"Alexander\", obviously a Greek. He appeared to have been a very important man to the\r\nWesterners, for often he was simply called 'Commentator', a title reserved in other contexts for Averroes.\r\nThis discovery gave rise to the questions,(!) Who was Alexander? (2) Are there more references to him in other Latin texts? (3) Is his work extant in Latin? (4) Is it extant in Greek?\r\nRe 1 At first I thought he must be Alexander of Aphrodisias. Now I do not know how to answer the question.\r\nRe 2 I soon found that Minio-Paluello and De Rijk had already signalled some other references to Alexander.\r\nRe 3 My first investigations indicated the answer would be no, and I still have not found the text in any manuscript. \r\nRe 4 My early research indicated the answer would be no, but that extant Greek scholia were often comparable to the Latin quotations of Alexander.\r\nThe preliminary probings suggested that a search for more Latin references to Alexander and an inquiry into the Greek scholia on the Elenchi might throw light on the origins of Western scholasticism and at the same time prove the existence of a Byzantine scholasticism comparable to that of Western Europe in the High Middle Ages. A systematic search for more fragments of the Latin translation of Alexanders's commentary resulted in the collection that figures as Vol. II, Part 2, of this study.\r\nStudying the Greek scholia I soon realized that they could not be used for any serious purpose as long as elementary questions of dating and attribution had not been solved. Trying to find the answer to such questions, I found that investigating the whole manuscript tradition\r\nwas inescapable. The results of that investigation are presented in Vol. 1 chapter V and the appendices (in Vol. III).\r\nReading the Greek scholia I became convinced that Byzantine scholasticism never produced results comparable to those of its Western counterpart; but, on the other hand, a study of the late ancient and medieval Greek scholastic tradition could, indeed, throw light on the\r\norigins of Western logic.\r\nThe results of my investigations are presented partly in the notes on \"Alexander's\" fragments (in Vol. Ill), partly in a series of essays on central problems (Vol. I ch.IV).\r\nVol. I chapters I-II contain sketches of pre-scholastic theories of fallacies, some of which were to influence the scholastics, whereas chapter III introduces scholasticism.\r\nAs both Vol. I and Vol. III discuss Greek texts that have never been printed, I have collected a number of such texts in Vol. II, editing also Galen's De captionibus because the earlier editions are no longer satisfactory.\r\nChapters I through W of Vol. I all have a speculative character. I have tried to rein in my imagination, but I may not always have achieved my aim. I feel sure I have misunderstood the old philosophers on several points. Perhaps it can serve as an excuse that most of the problems I deal with have not been investigated before. If there are fundamental errors in chapter V, the consequences for the rest of 'Commentators and Commentaries' will be serious, if not disastrous. I trust, however, that my results concerning the Byzantine tradition are\r\nessentially correct. [preface]\r\n","btype":1,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gtXiqKQ2uGtS14q","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":34,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi. A study of Post-Aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies. Vol. 1 The Greek Tradition"]}

Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception, 1988
By: Mansfeld, Jaap, Broek, Roelof van den (Ed.), Baarda, Tjitze (Ed.), Mansfeld, Jaap (Ed.)
Title Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1988
Published in Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World
Pages 92-117
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mansfeld, Jaap
Editor(s) Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap
Translator(s)
Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God’s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos’ Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism—namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3–4, and in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (pp. 22.22–23.30 Diels).

Here, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes’ position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that “spherical” means “homogeneous” and “unmoved” means “beyond motion and rest,” i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs.

The accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the “doxographical vulgate”—i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus’ lost Physikai doxai—knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus.

This attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes’ God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus.

It also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes’ doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus’ negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"931","_score":null,"_source":{"id":931,"authors_free":[{"id":1378,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1379,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1380,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1381,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception","main_title":{"title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception"},"abstract":"Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God\u2019s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos\u2019 Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism\u2014namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3\u20134, and in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (pp. 22.22\u201323.30 Diels).\r\n\r\nHere, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes\u2019 position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that \u201cspherical\u201d means \u201chomogeneous\u201d and \u201cunmoved\u201d means \u201cbeyond motion and rest,\u201d i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs.\r\n\r\nThe accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the \u201cdoxographical vulgate\u201d\u2014i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus\u2019 lost Physikai doxai\u2014knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nThis attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes\u2019 God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes\u2019 doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus\u2019 negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":931,"section_of":337,"pages":"92-117","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":337,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"van_den_Broek1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception"]}

Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique, 1980
By: Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1980
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Vrin
Series Bibliotheque d’histoire de la philosophie
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)
Depuis Aristote, on entend par catégories des concepts très généraux, dont la généralité ne dérive pas de l’expérience, mais en quelque sorte la précède, puisque c’est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l’organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts – substance, quantité, relation, qualité, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir – sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pensée ou bien sont-ils liés aux particularités sémantiques ou syntaxiques d’un système linguistique particulier, en l’occurrence de la langue grecque, à l’intérieur de laquelle ils ont été pour la première fois énoncés et rassemblés?
Les études ici réunies, issues d’un séminaire qui s’est poursuivi durant plusieurs années au Centre de recherche sur la Pensée antique de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, associé au C.N.R.S. (Centre Léon-Robin), s’efforcent d’apporter des éléments de réponse à cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport spécifique consiste dans une exégèse rigoureuse des analyses du traité aristotélicien des Catégories, éclairé par les développements ultérieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment à travers le Commentaire du Néoplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces études examinent l’influence ou les transformations des catégories aristotéliciennes chez les Stoïciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l’Antiquité, les Néoplatoniciens tardifs, les Pères de l’Église et dans la tradition latine antique et médiévale. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"302","_score":null,"_source":{"id":302,"authors_free":[{"id":377,"entry_id":302,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","main_title":{"title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique"},"abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique"]}

Confirmation of Two "Conjectures" in the Presocratics: Parmenides B 12 and Anaxagoras B 15, 1979
By: Sider, David
Title Confirmation of Two "Conjectures" in the Presocratics: Parmenides B 12 and Anaxagoras B 15
Type Article
Language English
Date 1979
Journal Phoenix
Volume 33
Issue 1
Pages 67-69
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sider, David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In each of the two passages discussed below, the indisputably correct reading is given by Diels as an editorial conjecture, when in fact, for each, there is manuscript authority. [introduction p. 67]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"850","_score":null,"_source":{"id":850,"authors_free":[{"id":1254,"entry_id":850,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":320,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sider, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Sider","norm_person":{"id":320,"first_name":"David","last_name":"Sider","full_name":"Sider, David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1129478610","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Confirmation of Two \"Conjectures\" in the Presocratics: Parmenides B 12 and Anaxagoras B 15","main_title":{"title":"Confirmation of Two \"Conjectures\" in the Presocratics: Parmenides B 12 and Anaxagoras B 15"},"abstract":"In each of the two passages discussed below, the indisputably correct reading is given by Diels as an editorial conjecture, when in fact, for each, there is manuscript authority. [introduction p. 67]","btype":3,"date":"1979","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RDFVugAzW2NIhCB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":320,"full_name":"Sider, David","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":850,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phoenix","volume":"33","issue":"1","pages":"67-69"}},"sort":["Confirmation of Two \"Conjectures\" in the Presocratics: Parmenides B 12 and Anaxagoras B 15"]}

Conférence de M. Philippe Hoffmann: Sens et dénomination. Homonymie, analogie, métaphore selon le commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégories d'Aristote, 1984
By: Hoffmann, Philippe
Title Conférence de M. Philippe Hoffmann: Sens et dénomination. Homonymie, analogie, métaphore selon le commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégories d'Aristote
Type Article
Language French
Date 1984
Journal École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences religieuses. Annuaire
Volume 93
Pages 343-356
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Notre lecture du Commentaire de Simplicius s'est organisée selon plusieurs fils directeurs. Nous avons examiné, tout d'abord, les méthodes mêmes de l'exégèse : Simplicius lit le texte d'Aristote mot à mot (kata tên lexin), en scrutant au besoin tous les sens possibles d'un même mot ; l'explication proprement doctrinale procède en partie par des citations (ou paraphrases) d'auteurs antérieurs : Porphyre (Commentaire par questions et réponses, et surtout Commentaire à Gédalios), Jamblique et Syrianus.

Nous avons aussi tenté de dégager les traits proprement néoplatoniciens du commentaire : ainsi, à propos du couple « nom-définition », dont l'interprétation ne peut se comprendre que dans la perspective plus générale du système néoplatonicien. Il apparaît en outre que la condition de possibilité de l'homonymie, et de son contraire la polyonymie, est le caractère « conventionnel » (thesei et non phusei) du langage : il fallait donc situer la réflexion néoplatonicienne dans le cadre des discussions traditionnelles sur l'origine du langage.

D'autres questions se posaient encore : quelle est, au fond, la justification et l'utilité d'un tel exposé préliminaire dans un ouvrage consacré aux catégories ? La doctrine des homonymes, synonymes et paronymes exprime-t-elle des propriétés des réalités, ou des noms (onomata) ? Quelle est la spécificité de la recherche philosophique d'Aristote par rapport à la grammaire, ou à l'étude littéraire du langage, qui relève de la Rhétorique ?

Le commentaire de Simplicius cite le témoignage de Boèthos de Sidon sur la doctrine de Speusippe, qui, à la différence d'Aristote, divise les onomata : ce fut l'occasion d'une mise au point portant à la fois sur les théories antiques de l'homonymie et de la synonymie, et sur l'importance de ces commentaires comme sources de nos connaissances en matière de philosophie antique. [introduction p. 344-345]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"507","_score":null,"_source":{"id":507,"authors_free":[{"id":701,"entry_id":507,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Conf\u00e9rence de M. Philippe Hoffmann: Sens et d\u00e9nomination. Homonymie, analogie, m\u00e9taphore selon le commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Conf\u00e9rence de M. Philippe Hoffmann: Sens et d\u00e9nomination. Homonymie, analogie, m\u00e9taphore selon le commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote"},"abstract":"Notre lecture du Commentaire de Simplicius s'est organis\u00e9e selon plusieurs fils directeurs. Nous avons examin\u00e9, tout d'abord, les m\u00e9thodes m\u00eames de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se : Simplicius lit le texte d'Aristote mot \u00e0 mot (kata t\u00ean lexin), en scrutant au besoin tous les sens possibles d'un m\u00eame mot ; l'explication proprement doctrinale proc\u00e8de en partie par des citations (ou paraphrases) d'auteurs ant\u00e9rieurs : Porphyre (Commentaire par questions et r\u00e9ponses, et surtout Commentaire \u00e0 G\u00e9dalios), Jamblique et Syrianus.\r\n\r\nNous avons aussi tent\u00e9 de d\u00e9gager les traits proprement n\u00e9oplatoniciens du commentaire : ainsi, \u00e0 propos du couple \u00ab nom-d\u00e9finition \u00bb, dont l'interpr\u00e9tation ne peut se comprendre que dans la perspective plus g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du syst\u00e8me n\u00e9oplatonicien. Il appara\u00eet en outre que la condition de possibilit\u00e9 de l'homonymie, et de son contraire la polyonymie, est le caract\u00e8re \u00ab conventionnel \u00bb (thesei et non phusei) du langage : il fallait donc situer la r\u00e9flexion n\u00e9oplatonicienne dans le cadre des discussions traditionnelles sur l'origine du langage.\r\n\r\nD'autres questions se posaient encore : quelle est, au fond, la justification et l'utilit\u00e9 d'un tel expos\u00e9 pr\u00e9liminaire dans un ouvrage consacr\u00e9 aux cat\u00e9gories ? La doctrine des homonymes, synonymes et paronymes exprime-t-elle des propri\u00e9t\u00e9s des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s, ou des noms (onomata) ? Quelle est la sp\u00e9cificit\u00e9 de la recherche philosophique d'Aristote par rapport \u00e0 la grammaire, ou \u00e0 l'\u00e9tude litt\u00e9raire du langage, qui rel\u00e8ve de la Rh\u00e9torique ?\r\n\r\nLe commentaire de Simplicius cite le t\u00e9moignage de Bo\u00e8thos de Sidon sur la doctrine de Speusippe, qui, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence d'Aristote, divise les onomata : ce fut l'occasion d'une mise au point portant \u00e0 la fois sur les th\u00e9ories antiques de l'homonymie et de la synonymie, et sur l'importance de ces commentaires comme sources de nos connaissances en mati\u00e8re de philosophie antique. [introduction p. 344-345]","btype":3,"date":"1984","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oqTrFiRR6jzhlNL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":507,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":" \u00c9cole pratique des hautes \u00e9tudes, Section des sciences religieuses. Annuaire","volume":"93","issue":"","pages":"343-356"}},"sort":["Conf\u00e9rence de M. Philippe Hoffmann: Sens et d\u00e9nomination. Homonymie, analogie, m\u00e9taphore selon le commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote"]}

Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Prädikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?, 1974
By: Wiesner, Jürgen, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Prädikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1974
Published in PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus
Pages 208-229
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Ziel dieses Kapitels war es zunächst, die Rückführbarkeit des Xenophanes-Referates von Simplikios und MXG auf Theophrast anhand eines Beispiels zu überprüfen. Wenn dabei die These von Steinmetz an einem entscheidenden Punkt erschüttert worden ist, da MXG mit den antinomischen Prädikaten ebensowenig eine zuverlässige Wiedergabe des Eresiers sein kann wie Simplikios, stellt sich die Frage: Was wird aus seiner Herleitung der beiden Parallelberichte teils aus den φυσικαὶ δόξαι, teils aus der Physik? [conclusion p. 229]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"434","_score":null,"_source":{"id":434,"authors_free":[{"id":584,"entry_id":434,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2169,"entry_id":434,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?","main_title":{"title":"Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?"},"abstract":"Ziel dieses Kapitels war es zun\u00e4chst, die R\u00fcckf\u00fchrbarkeit des Xenophanes-Referates von Simplikios und MXG auf Theophrast anhand eines Beispiels zu \u00fcberpr\u00fcfen. Wenn dabei die These von Steinmetz an einem entscheidenden Punkt ersch\u00fcttert worden ist, da MXG mit den antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikaten ebensowenig eine zuverl\u00e4ssige Wiedergabe des Eresiers sein kann wie Simplikios, stellt sich die Frage: Was wird aus seiner Herleitung der beiden Parallelberichte teils aus den \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9, teils aus der Physik? [conclusion p. 229]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3Dxf4dLb8SNzbok","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":434,"section_of":2,"pages":"208-229","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?"]}

Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 1: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I. Jh. v. Chr., 1973
By: Moraux, Paul
Title Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 1: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I. Jh. v. Chr.
Type Monograph
Language German
Date 1973
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Peripatoi
Volume 5
Categories no categories
Author(s) Moraux, Paul
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"14","_score":null,"_source":{"id":14,"authors_free":[{"id":15,"entry_id":14,"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":"Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 1: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I. Jh. v. Chr.","main_title":{"title":"Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 1: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I. Jh. v. Chr."},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1973","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VBBIsjdgwwe3ta8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":14,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 1: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I. Jh. v. Chr."]}

Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 2: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh. n.Chr., 1984
By: Moraux, Paul
Title Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 2: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh. n.Chr.
Type Monograph
Language German
Date 1984
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Peripatoi
Volume 6
Categories no categories
Author(s) Moraux, Paul
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Durch seine Tendenzen und seine Leistungen unterscheidet sich der Aristotelismus der beiden ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte kaum von dem der zweiten Hälfte des ersten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. In der hier behandelten frühen Kaiserzeit lassen sich keine neuen Merkmale beobachten, die eine scharfe Trennung zwischen diesen beiden Jahrhunderten und dem vorhergehenden rechtfertigten. Vielmehr erscheint die Periode von Andronikos bis einschließlich Alexander von Aphrodisias als relativ einheitlich in ihrer Interpretation des Aristoteles. Sie unterscheidet sich vom neuplatonischen Aristotelesverständnis hauptsächlich dadurch, dass sie sich noch nicht zur grundsätzlichen Identität zwischen Aristoteles und Platon bekennt. Nur die Menge des Materials, das es zu untersuchen galt, hat mich gezwungen, die Darstellung dieser ganzen Periode auf drei Bände zu verteilen. [...]
In der zweiten Hälfte dieser Arbeit wollen wir uns mit dem Aristotelismus in der Sicht anderer Schulen befassen. Die Entlehnungen aus dem Aristotelismus bei einigen Mittelplatonikern, ferner die gegen Aristoteles gerichtete Kritik und schließlich die Auseinandersetzungen von Nicht-Aristotelikern mit Schriften des Stagiriten dürfen in einer Untersuchung über den Aristotelismus in den ersten beiden nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten nicht außer Acht gelassen werden. Auch dort wird sich zeigen, wie in der Einleitung zum zweiten Buch ausführlicher dargelegt wird, dass etwa bei Platonikern das grundsätzliche Bekenntnis zum Platonismus oft Hand in Hand geht mit einem tatsächlichen Eklektizismus. Die Deutung Platons unter Benutzung typisch aristotelischer Errungenschaften erschien also als durchaus legitim. [preface]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"65","_score":null,"_source":{"id":65,"authors_free":[{"id":73,"entry_id":65,"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":"Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 2: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh. n.Chr.","main_title":{"title":"Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 2: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh. n.Chr."},"abstract":"Durch seine Tendenzen und seine Leistungen unterscheidet sich der Aristotelismus der beiden ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte kaum von dem der zweiten H\u00e4lfte des ersten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. In der hier behandelten fr\u00fchen Kaiserzeit lassen sich keine neuen Merkmale beobachten, die eine scharfe Trennung zwischen diesen beiden Jahrhunderten und dem vorhergehenden rechtfertigten. Vielmehr erscheint die Periode von Andronikos bis einschlie\u00dflich Alexander von Aphrodisias als relativ einheitlich in ihrer Interpretation des Aristoteles. Sie unterscheidet sich vom neuplatonischen Aristotelesverst\u00e4ndnis haupts\u00e4chlich dadurch, dass sie sich noch nicht zur grunds\u00e4tzlichen Identit\u00e4t zwischen Aristoteles und Platon bekennt. Nur die Menge des Materials, das es zu untersuchen galt, hat mich gezwungen, die Darstellung dieser ganzen Periode auf drei B\u00e4nde zu verteilen. [...]\r\nIn der zweiten H\u00e4lfte dieser Arbeit wollen wir uns mit dem Aristotelismus in der Sicht anderer Schulen befassen. Die Entlehnungen aus dem Aristotelismus bei einigen Mittelplatonikern, ferner die gegen Aristoteles gerichtete Kritik und schlie\u00dflich die Auseinandersetzungen von Nicht-Aristotelikern mit Schriften des Stagiriten d\u00fcrfen in einer Untersuchung \u00fcber den Aristotelismus in den ersten beiden nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten nicht au\u00dfer Acht gelassen werden. Auch dort wird sich zeigen, wie in der Einleitung zum zweiten Buch ausf\u00fchrlicher dargelegt wird, dass etwa bei Platonikern das grunds\u00e4tzliche Bekenntnis zum Platonismus oft Hand in Hand geht mit einem tats\u00e4chlichen Eklektizismus. Die Deutung Platons unter Benutzung typisch aristotelischer Errungenschaften erschien also als durchaus legitim. [preface]","btype":1,"date":"1984","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nSxL9S7Z1RoD9mZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":65,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi","volume":"6","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Band 2: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh. n.Chr."]}

Der kleine Pauly, Band 5, 1975
By: Sontheimer, Walther (Ed.), Ziegler, Konrat (Ed.)
Title Der kleine Pauly, Band 5
Type Edited Book
Language German
Date 1975
Publication Place München
Publisher Druckenmüller
Series Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike
Volume 5
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Sontheimer, Walther , Ziegler, Konrat
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"264","_score":null,"_source":{"id":264,"authors_free":[{"id":334,"entry_id":264,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":67,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sontheimer, Walther ","free_first_name":"Walther ","free_last_name":"Sontheimer","norm_person":{"id":67,"first_name":"Walther ","last_name":"Sontheimer","full_name":"Sontheimer, Walther ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117476307","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1880,"entry_id":264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":68,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ziegler, Konrat","free_first_name":"Konrat","free_last_name":"Ziegler","norm_person":{"id":68,"first_name":"Konrat","last_name":"Ziegler","full_name":"Ziegler, Konrat","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118772805","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der kleine Pauly, Band 5","main_title":{"title":"Der kleine Pauly, Band 5"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1975","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nT4V3xwm4Jp1gS4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":67,"full_name":"Sontheimer, Walther ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":68,"full_name":"Ziegler, Konrat","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":264,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnchen","publisher":"Druckenm\u00fcller","series":"Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Der kleine Pauly, Band 5"]}

Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS, 1975
By: Gillispie, Charles Coulston (Ed.)
Title Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1975
Publication Place New York
Publisher Charles Scriber’s Sons
Volume XII
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Gillispie, Charles Coulston
Translator(s)
The Dictionary of Scientific Biography is a scholarly reference work that was published from 1970 through 1980 by publisher Charles Scribner's Sons, with main editor the science historian Charles Gillispie, from Princeton University. It consisted of sixteen volumes. It is supplemented by the New Dictionary of Scientific Biography (2007). Both these publications are included in a later electronic book, called the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography.  [wikipedia]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1394","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1394,"authors_free":[{"id":2164,"entry_id":1394,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":354,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","free_first_name":"Charles Coulston","free_last_name":"Gillispie","norm_person":{"id":354,"first_name":"Charles Coulston","last_name":"Gillispie","full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117710539","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS","main_title":{"title":"Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS"},"abstract":"The Dictionary of Scientific Biography is a scholarly reference work that was published from 1970 through 1980 by publisher Charles Scribner's Sons, with main editor the science historian Charles Gillispie, from Princeton University. It consisted of sixteen volumes. It is supplemented by the New Dictionary of Scientific Biography (2007). Both these publications are included in a later electronic book, called the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. [wikipedia]","btype":4,"date":"1975","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zr2wPOTesQdHoAn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":354,"full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1394,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Charles Scriber\u2019s Sons","series":"","volume":"XII","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS"]}

Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?, 1974
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1974
Journal Hermes
Volume 102
Issue 4
Pages 540–556
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Bearing  in  mind  the  reservations  already  made,  what  conclusions  can  we draw?  In the first place, it is fair to say that the evidence from Simplicius does, taken  overall,  suggest  that  Iamblichus did not  write a commentary on  the de Anima. Consideration of  Stephanus'  commentary on de Anima G points in the same  direction,  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  that  commentary  contains 
a reference to  Iamblichus'  that  looks  more like  a  quotation from  a de  Anima commentary  than  any  other  that  we  have.  Philoponus  is  less  helpful,  as  are other  members  of  the  Alexandrian  school.  He  certainly  gives  no  positive indication  that  Iamblichus  wrote  a  commentary,  but  for  the  reasons  that  we have given,  the lack  of  such positive  evidence  in  his case does not  amount  to 
anything  like  conclusive  negative  evidence.  We  cannot  entirely  rule  out  the possibility  that  Iamblichus  did  write  a  commentary,  either  on  the  de  Anima as  a whole,  or on some extended part  of  it,  but it seems probably that he  did 
not.  If  he  did  it  would  certainly  be  fair  to  say  that  his  commentary  was probably  of  no  great  importance.  Discussions  of  isolated  texts  of  Aristotle are  another  matter:  they  are  only  to  be  expected  in  the  work  of  any  Neoplatonist. [conclusion, p. 556]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"569","_score":null,"_source":{"id":569,"authors_free":[{"id":808,"entry_id":569,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?","main_title":{"title":"Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?"},"abstract":"Bearing in mind the reservations already made, what conclusions can we draw? In the first place, it is fair to say that the evidence from Simplicius does, taken overall, suggest that Iamblichus did not write a commentary on the de Anima. Consideration of Stephanus' commentary on de Anima G points in the same direction, but it must not be forgotten that that commentary contains \r\na reference to Iamblichus' that looks more like a quotation from a de Anima commentary than any other that we have. Philoponus is less helpful, as are other members of the Alexandrian school. He certainly gives no positive indication that Iamblichus wrote a commentary, but for the reasons that we have given, the lack of such positive evidence in his case does not amount to \r\nanything like conclusive negative evidence. We cannot entirely rule out the possibility that Iamblichus did write a commentary, either on the de Anima as a whole, or on some extended part of it, but it seems probably that he did \r\nnot. If he did it would certainly be fair to say that his commentary was probably of no great importance. Discussions of isolated texts of Aristotle are another matter: they are only to be expected in the work of any Neoplatonist. [conclusion, p. 556]","btype":3,"date":"1974","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sl42R04H6zbpEIJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":569,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"102","issue":"4","pages":"540\u2013556"}},"sort":["Did Iamblichus Write a Commentary on the De Anima?"]}

Die Beweise für die Unbewegtheit und Unveränderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8), 1974
By: Wiesner, Jürgen, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Die Beweise für die Unbewegtheit und Unveränderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8)
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1974
Published in PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus
Pages 99-164
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Wie nach der Diskussion aller textlichen Prägen völlig eindeutig ist, erwähnt der MXG-Autor in 976a12 Körperlichkeit des Einen für Melissos: hôs autos legei meint diesen Eleaten ebenso wie das spätere kai autos houtô g' einai axioi in 976a23. Die Stelle ist zur Beurteilung der Zuverlässigkeit des Autors von Wert, wie immer man sie erklären mag, weil Kenntnis des Originals auf jeden Fall ausscheidet.

Wenn (a) kai touto sôma, wie es den Anschein hat, noch zu dem Zitat hôs autos legei gehört, kann diese Angabe nur aus einer Sekundärquelle geschöpft sein; aber auch falls (b) hôs autos legei, wie Apelt annimmt, allein auf ev zu beziehen ist und kai touto sôma bereits ein eigenständiger Zusatz des MXG-Autors ist, kann diesem die Aussage des Originals kaum bekannt gewesen sein. Denn in seiner Stellungnahme geht der Anonymus, selbst wenn er z.T. inadäquate Ausdeutungen daran anknüpft (z.B. homoion als homoimeres), prinzipiell von den ihm bekannten Thesen des Melissos aus. Die Annahme von sôma und mere für den Eleaten kann daher eigentlich nur bedeuten, dass dessen wirkliche Ansichten dem Autor nicht vorlagen, ihm also offenbar keine über das Referat hinausgehenden Positionen des Melissos verfügbar waren.

Gegen das Zeugnis des Simplikios lassen sich somit die Angaben von MXG, wie es Zeller wollte, nicht ausspielen. Der Neuplatoniker sagt mit Recht Unkörperlichkeit für das melisseische Seiende aus; wenn er von diesem als ideellem, vollkommenem im Gegensatz zum körperlichen, kontingenten Seienden spricht (Simpl. Phys. 650,5) und in der Paraphrase den Terminus to haplôs on anwendet (Phys. 103,18-19), darf der Abstand zu dem ideellen Seienden des mit Platon einsetzenden Dualismus natürlich nicht übersehen werden. Die Eleaten verbleiben auf der Ebene dieses Seins, wie es Aristoteles (Cael. I 1, 298b21 ff.) sehr deutlich formuliert: Sie hätten nichts außer den tôn aisthetôn ousia angenommen, auf die sie die für die Existenz von Wissen notwendigen, von ihnen zuerst erkannten Charakteristika des eigentlichen Seins übertragen hätten.

Melissos ist dabei radikaler als Parmenides verfahren: Dieser hatte – stets unter Bezug auf dieses Sein – nach einem Aufriss gemäß den Forderungen des Denkens dann in der Doxa-Lehre den geläufigen Anschauungen in gewisser Weise Rechnung getragen; demgegenüber betrachtet Melissos dieses Sein allein unter dem Gesichtspunkt der deduzierten Prädikate. Einen mit Parmenides vergleichbaren Doxateil, wie es Reinhardt annehmen wollte, gibt es bei ihm nicht; wohl aber gibt es, wie die voraufgehenden Untersuchungen gezeigt haben, einen zweiten Teil der Schrift des Melissos, in dem pluralistische Konzeptionen wie Vielheit und Mischung am eleatischen Einen und seinen Eigenschaften gemessen und abgelehnt wurden.

In diesen Zusammenhang ließ sich auch das umstrittene fr. B9 einordnen, dessen sprachliche Formulierung enge Berührungen mit B8 aufweist: ei ... eiê bezieht sich auf die gegnerische Konzeption (B9 wie B8,6), die im Falle einer wirklichen Existenz dem Kriterium des eleatischen Einen genügen müsste (dei-Satz in B9, kei-Sätze in B8,6; B8,2). Wenn nun, wie es in B9 weiter heißt, sôma und pachos Teile implizieren, musste Melissos für das Seiende eine solche Körperlichkeit ausschließen. [conclusion p. 163-164]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"435","_score":null,"_source":{"id":435,"authors_free":[{"id":585,"entry_id":435,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2168,"entry_id":435,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Beweise f\u00fcr die Unbewegtheit und Unver\u00e4nderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8)","main_title":{"title":"Die Beweise f\u00fcr die Unbewegtheit und Unver\u00e4nderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8)"},"abstract":"Wie nach der Diskussion aller textlichen Pr\u00e4gen v\u00f6llig eindeutig ist, erw\u00e4hnt der MXG-Autor in 976a12 K\u00f6rperlichkeit des Einen f\u00fcr Melissos: h\u00f4s autos legei meint diesen Eleaten ebenso wie das sp\u00e4tere kai autos hout\u00f4 g' einai axioi in 976a23. Die Stelle ist zur Beurteilung der Zuverl\u00e4ssigkeit des Autors von Wert, wie immer man sie erkl\u00e4ren mag, weil Kenntnis des Originals auf jeden Fall ausscheidet.\r\n\r\nWenn (a) kai touto s\u00f4ma, wie es den Anschein hat, noch zu dem Zitat h\u00f4s autos legei geh\u00f6rt, kann diese Angabe nur aus einer Sekund\u00e4rquelle gesch\u00f6pft sein; aber auch falls (b) h\u00f4s autos legei, wie Apelt annimmt, allein auf ev zu beziehen ist und kai touto s\u00f4ma bereits ein eigenst\u00e4ndiger Zusatz des MXG-Autors ist, kann diesem die Aussage des Originals kaum bekannt gewesen sein. Denn in seiner Stellungnahme geht der Anonymus, selbst wenn er z.T. inad\u00e4quate Ausdeutungen daran ankn\u00fcpft (z.B. homoion als homoimeres), prinzipiell von den ihm bekannten Thesen des Melissos aus. Die Annahme von s\u00f4ma und mere f\u00fcr den Eleaten kann daher eigentlich nur bedeuten, dass dessen wirkliche Ansichten dem Autor nicht vorlagen, ihm also offenbar keine \u00fcber das Referat hinausgehenden Positionen des Melissos verf\u00fcgbar waren.\r\n\r\nGegen das Zeugnis des Simplikios lassen sich somit die Angaben von MXG, wie es Zeller wollte, nicht ausspielen. Der Neuplatoniker sagt mit Recht Unk\u00f6rperlichkeit f\u00fcr das melisseische Seiende aus; wenn er von diesem als ideellem, vollkommenem im Gegensatz zum k\u00f6rperlichen, kontingenten Seienden spricht (Simpl. Phys. 650,5) und in der Paraphrase den Terminus to hapl\u00f4s on anwendet (Phys. 103,18-19), darf der Abstand zu dem ideellen Seienden des mit Platon einsetzenden Dualismus nat\u00fcrlich nicht \u00fcbersehen werden. Die Eleaten verbleiben auf der Ebene dieses Seins, wie es Aristoteles (Cael. I 1, 298b21 ff.) sehr deutlich formuliert: Sie h\u00e4tten nichts au\u00dfer den t\u00f4n aisthet\u00f4n ousia angenommen, auf die sie die f\u00fcr die Existenz von Wissen notwendigen, von ihnen zuerst erkannten Charakteristika des eigentlichen Seins \u00fcbertragen h\u00e4tten.\r\n\r\nMelissos ist dabei radikaler als Parmenides verfahren: Dieser hatte \u2013 stets unter Bezug auf dieses Sein \u2013 nach einem Aufriss gem\u00e4\u00df den Forderungen des Denkens dann in der Doxa-Lehre den gel\u00e4ufigen Anschauungen in gewisser Weise Rechnung getragen; demgegen\u00fcber betrachtet Melissos dieses Sein allein unter dem Gesichtspunkt der deduzierten Pr\u00e4dikate. Einen mit Parmenides vergleichbaren Doxateil, wie es Reinhardt annehmen wollte, gibt es bei ihm nicht; wohl aber gibt es, wie die voraufgehenden Untersuchungen gezeigt haben, einen zweiten Teil der Schrift des Melissos, in dem pluralistische Konzeptionen wie Vielheit und Mischung am eleatischen Einen und seinen Eigenschaften gemessen und abgelehnt wurden.\r\n\r\nIn diesen Zusammenhang lie\u00df sich auch das umstrittene fr. B9 einordnen, dessen sprachliche Formulierung enge Ber\u00fchrungen mit B8 aufweist: ei ... ei\u00ea bezieht sich auf die gegnerische Konzeption (B9 wie B8,6), die im Falle einer wirklichen Existenz dem Kriterium des eleatischen Einen gen\u00fcgen m\u00fcsste (dei-Satz in B9, kei-S\u00e4tze in B8,6; B8,2). Wenn nun, wie es in B9 weiter hei\u00dft, s\u00f4ma und pachos Teile implizieren, musste Melissos f\u00fcr das Seiende eine solche K\u00f6rperlichkeit ausschlie\u00dfen. [conclusion p. 163-164]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rdmGYdcJSPKrtIL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":435,"section_of":2,"pages":"99-164","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Die Beweise f\u00fcr die Unbewegtheit und Unver\u00e4nderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8)"]}

Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung, 1974
By: Wiesner, Jürgen, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1974
Published in PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus
Pages 17-41
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Von den drei Referaten der Schrift MXG bestehen für den Melissos-Abschnitt die besten Vergleichsmöglichkeiten, da Simplikios bekanntlich umfangreiche Auszüge aus der Schrift des Melissos exzerpiert hat und daneben eine Paraphrase für den Teil der Schrift bietet, der die Prädikate des Seienden behandelt. Obwohl die Quellenlage also weit günstiger ist als im Falle des Xenophanes, finden sich doch divergierende Ansichten über den Grad der Authentizität des Melissos-Referats: Reinhardt hält den Bericht für zuverlässig, da jede spätere Dialektik fehle, mehrfach noch der Wortlaut des Originals durchscheine und die entscheidenden Prädikate des Seienden exakt beibehalten seien.

Gigon nennt den Abschnitt zwar "bedeutend schlechter" als das Gorgias-Referat, doch blicke der Text des Melissos unverkennbar durch. Calogero stellt das Nebeneinander von wörtlicher Nähe zum Original und von Unexaktheiten fest, die sich in der falschen Abfolge einzelner Prädikate und der Hinzufügung von Theorien (Mischungslehre) äußerten, und denkt daher an eine Wiedergabe der Melissos-Schrift aus dem Gedächtnis. Untersteiner schreibt einige dialektische Ausarbeitungen und die Hinzufügung der Mischungslehre dem Megariker zu.

Während bei diesen Forschern der Melissos-Abschnitt als im Ganzen wertvoll bezeichnet wird, hat Loenen ein völlig negatives Urteil abgegeben: Der Bericht enthalte einerseits Hinzufügungen aller Art, vor allem Unterscheidungen von im Original nicht vorhandenen Möglichkeiten (Entstehung von allem oder nicht allem 974a3-9, Bewegung ins Volle oder ins Leere 974a16-18, Mischungslehre 974a21-b2), andererseits Auslassungen, z.B. fehle die Erklärung wichtiger Termini wie etwa des homoeomeries-Begriffs. Dem Bericht könne deshalb historischer Wert nicht zuerkannt werden.

Es soll nun der Melissos-Abschnitt mit dem Original verglichen werden, um den Grad der Authentizität und die Art eventueller Zusätze genau zu ermitteln. Dies bedeutet zugleich den Versuch, bei einem Abschnitt mit günstiger Vergleichslage Kriterien für die Beurteilung des umstrittenen, quellenmäßig weit weniger gesicherten Xenophanes-Referats zu gewinnen. [conclusion p. 40-41]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"436","_score":null,"_source":{"id":436,"authors_free":[{"id":586,"entry_id":436,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2167,"entry_id":436,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung","main_title":{"title":"Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung"},"abstract":"Von den drei Referaten der Schrift MXG bestehen f\u00fcr den Melissos-Abschnitt die besten Vergleichsm\u00f6glichkeiten, da Simplikios bekanntlich umfangreiche Ausz\u00fcge aus der Schrift des Melissos exzerpiert hat und daneben eine Paraphrase f\u00fcr den Teil der Schrift bietet, der die Pr\u00e4dikate des Seienden behandelt. Obwohl die Quellenlage also weit g\u00fcnstiger ist als im Falle des Xenophanes, finden sich doch divergierende Ansichten \u00fcber den Grad der Authentizit\u00e4t des Melissos-Referats: Reinhardt h\u00e4lt den Bericht f\u00fcr zuverl\u00e4ssig, da jede sp\u00e4tere Dialektik fehle, mehrfach noch der Wortlaut des Originals durchscheine und die entscheidenden Pr\u00e4dikate des Seienden exakt beibehalten seien.\r\n\r\nGigon nennt den Abschnitt zwar \"bedeutend schlechter\" als das Gorgias-Referat, doch blicke der Text des Melissos unverkennbar durch. Calogero stellt das Nebeneinander von w\u00f6rtlicher N\u00e4he zum Original und von Unexaktheiten fest, die sich in der falschen Abfolge einzelner Pr\u00e4dikate und der Hinzuf\u00fcgung von Theorien (Mischungslehre) \u00e4u\u00dferten, und denkt daher an eine Wiedergabe der Melissos-Schrift aus dem Ged\u00e4chtnis. Untersteiner schreibt einige dialektische Ausarbeitungen und die Hinzuf\u00fcgung der Mischungslehre dem Megariker zu.\r\n\r\nW\u00e4hrend bei diesen Forschern der Melissos-Abschnitt als im Ganzen wertvoll bezeichnet wird, hat Loenen ein v\u00f6llig negatives Urteil abgegeben: Der Bericht enthalte einerseits Hinzuf\u00fcgungen aller Art, vor allem Unterscheidungen von im Original nicht vorhandenen M\u00f6glichkeiten (Entstehung von allem oder nicht allem 974a3-9, Bewegung ins Volle oder ins Leere 974a16-18, Mischungslehre 974a21-b2), andererseits Auslassungen, z.B. fehle die Erkl\u00e4rung wichtiger Termini wie etwa des homoeomeries-Begriffs. Dem Bericht k\u00f6nne deshalb historischer Wert nicht zuerkannt werden.\r\n\r\nEs soll nun der Melissos-Abschnitt mit dem Original verglichen werden, um den Grad der Authentizit\u00e4t und die Art eventueller Zus\u00e4tze genau zu ermitteln. Dies bedeutet zugleich den Versuch, bei einem Abschnitt mit g\u00fcnstiger Vergleichslage Kriterien f\u00fcr die Beurteilung des umstrittenen, quellenm\u00e4\u00dfig weit weniger gesicherten Xenophanes-Referats zu gewinnen. [conclusion p. 40-41]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dnhawLwLUUqppPb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":436,"section_of":2,"pages":"17-41","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung"]}

Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium, 1982
By: Mansfeld, Jaap
Title Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium
Type Article
Language English
Date 1982
Journal Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
Volume 125
Issue 1
Pages 1-24
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mansfeld, Jaap
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Of Zeno's four arguments against the reality of motion transmitted by Aristotle, the fourth, the so-called Stadium (Vors. 29 A 28), is perhaps the most difficult. The difficulties involved are of two sorts: philological problems on the one hand, questions of a philosophical nature on the other. In the present paper, I am concerned with the first sort, not the second, although I shall perhaps not be successful in keeping the latter out altogether. A study of the philosophical discussions to be found in the learned literature, however, has convinced me that the first problem to be solved is that of the interpretation of Aristotle's text. There is a general feeling that Aristotle, in reporting and arguing against Zeno's argument, somehow failed. I believe his report is sufficiently clear; although Aristotle's argument contra Zeno is not, perhaps, satisfactory in every respect, Zeno's original paradox can be found in his text. I shall attempt to show that, in order to find it, we must begin by taking both the topography of the stadium and the position of the bodies in it into account, which several recent reconstructions, however satisfactory they may appear to be in other respects, fail to do.

I wish to start from a consideration concerned with a non-philosophical feature the four arguments against motion have in common: the fact that they are fun. They undoubtedly are very serious arguments, but they were also written in order to épater le bourgeois. The first argument proves that a runner will never get to the end of the stadium: once he has got halfway, he still has to get halfway the remaining half, halfway the remaining quarter, and so on, in infinitum. The second proves that swift-footed Achilles will never catch up with the slowest thing on earth, because the distance in between, although constantly diminishing, forever remains proportionally the same. The third proves that a flying arrow, which occupies a place equal to its own size, is at rest, because it does not move at the place where it is, and not at the place where it is not either.

The first three arguments, then, are genuine and rather hilarious paradoxes. They reveal Zeno as a wit. To ask what is so funny about the fourth argument against motion, therefore, is a legitimate question. Yet I have hardly ever read an account of the fourth paradox which brought out the inevitable smile fetched by the others. Instead, one finds complicated discussions about infinite divisibility versus discrete or granular structure, and endless shufflings and reshufflings of the runners on the course. There are several reasons for this unfortunate situation, the most important of which, I believe, is that both ancient commentators (to judge from Simplicius' account) and modern scholars have failed to distinguish (or to distinguish sufficiently) between Zeno's paradox on the one hand and Aristotle's refutation on the other. Another reason is that Aristotle's text is plagued in parts with variae lectiones that seriously affect the meaning of the argument as a whole. Some of these readings enjoy the support of Simplicius, but this does not prove them right, for Simplicius points out one passage where Alexander of Aphrodisias followed a reading different from that accepted by himself and which, as he believes, Alexander "found in some manuscripts" (ἐν ταῖς ἀντιγράφοις εὗρον, In Phys. 1017, 19). Furthermore, as Simplicius likewise tells us (In Phys. 1019, 27–31), Alexander proposed to interpolate Phys. Z 9, 240a15-16 λαὸν-φρήσιν immediately after 240a11 διελῆλυθεν. Alexander, then, found it difficult to understand the argument of the text as transmitted (which, at at least one other point, differed from Simplicius’). Simplicius' lengthy reconstruction of the fourth argument against motion and of Aristotle's critique thereof (In Phys. 1016, 7–1020, 6, printed—as far as 1019, 9—by Lee as T 36) appears to have no other authority than his own, for he differs from Alexander, and the only other person cited (Eudemus, Fr. 106 Wehrli) is only adduced for points which do not affect the interpretation of the more difficult parts of Phys. Z 9, 239b33–240a17.

Although scholars have dealt rather freely with Simplicius' commentary, using only those sections which fit their own views, it should be acknowledged that his reconstruction of the paradox, and especially his diagram of the stadium featuring three rows of runners, have been of crucial importance to the modern history of interpretation of Zeno's argument. I believe, however, that Simplicius (and perhaps Alexander as well) already made the fundamental mistake of failing to distinguish in the proper way between Zeno's paradox and Aristotle's refutation, although in Simplicius' case this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that he apparently noticed the joke of Zeno's argument (one doesn’t know if Alexander did). We are not bound, then, to follow Simplicius all, or even half the way, and need not even accept his guidance as to the choice to be made among the variae lectiones. These different readings themselves, so it seems, reflect different ancient interpretations of Aristotle's exposition. In some manuscripts, interpretamenta may have got into the text (as at 240a6), or even have ousted other, more difficult readings (as at 240a11). [introduction p. 1-3]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1108","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1108,"authors_free":[{"id":2070,"entry_id":1108,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium","main_title":{"title":"Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium"},"abstract":"Of Zeno's four arguments against the reality of motion transmitted by Aristotle, the fourth, the so-called Stadium (Vors. 29 A 28), is perhaps the most difficult. The difficulties involved are of two sorts: philological problems on the one hand, questions of a philosophical nature on the other. In the present paper, I am concerned with the first sort, not the second, although I shall perhaps not be successful in keeping the latter out altogether. A study of the philosophical discussions to be found in the learned literature, however, has convinced me that the first problem to be solved is that of the interpretation of Aristotle's text. There is a general feeling that Aristotle, in reporting and arguing against Zeno's argument, somehow failed. I believe his report is sufficiently clear; although Aristotle's argument contra Zeno is not, perhaps, satisfactory in every respect, Zeno's original paradox can be found in his text. I shall attempt to show that, in order to find it, we must begin by taking both the topography of the stadium and the position of the bodies in it into account, which several recent reconstructions, however satisfactory they may appear to be in other respects, fail to do.\r\n\r\nI wish to start from a consideration concerned with a non-philosophical feature the four arguments against motion have in common: the fact that they are fun. They undoubtedly are very serious arguments, but they were also written in order to \u00e9pater le bourgeois. The first argument proves that a runner will never get to the end of the stadium: once he has got halfway, he still has to get halfway the remaining half, halfway the remaining quarter, and so on, in infinitum. The second proves that swift-footed Achilles will never catch up with the slowest thing on earth, because the distance in between, although constantly diminishing, forever remains proportionally the same. The third proves that a flying arrow, which occupies a place equal to its own size, is at rest, because it does not move at the place where it is, and not at the place where it is not either.\r\n\r\nThe first three arguments, then, are genuine and rather hilarious paradoxes. They reveal Zeno as a wit. To ask what is so funny about the fourth argument against motion, therefore, is a legitimate question. Yet I have hardly ever read an account of the fourth paradox which brought out the inevitable smile fetched by the others. Instead, one finds complicated discussions about infinite divisibility versus discrete or granular structure, and endless shufflings and reshufflings of the runners on the course. There are several reasons for this unfortunate situation, the most important of which, I believe, is that both ancient commentators (to judge from Simplicius' account) and modern scholars have failed to distinguish (or to distinguish sufficiently) between Zeno's paradox on the one hand and Aristotle's refutation on the other. Another reason is that Aristotle's text is plagued in parts with variae lectiones that seriously affect the meaning of the argument as a whole. Some of these readings enjoy the support of Simplicius, but this does not prove them right, for Simplicius points out one passage where Alexander of Aphrodisias followed a reading different from that accepted by himself and which, as he believes, Alexander \"found in some manuscripts\" (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, In Phys. 1017, 19). Furthermore, as Simplicius likewise tells us (In Phys. 1019, 27\u201331), Alexander proposed to interpolate Phys. Z 9, 240a15-16 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd-\u03c6\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd immediately after 240a11 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd. Alexander, then, found it difficult to understand the argument of the text as transmitted (which, at at least one other point, differed from Simplicius\u2019). Simplicius' lengthy reconstruction of the fourth argument against motion and of Aristotle's critique thereof (In Phys. 1016, 7\u20131020, 6, printed\u2014as far as 1019, 9\u2014by Lee as T 36) appears to have no other authority than his own, for he differs from Alexander, and the only other person cited (Eudemus, Fr. 106 Wehrli) is only adduced for points which do not affect the interpretation of the more difficult parts of Phys. Z 9, 239b33\u2013240a17.\r\n\r\nAlthough scholars have dealt rather freely with Simplicius' commentary, using only those sections which fit their own views, it should be acknowledged that his reconstruction of the paradox, and especially his diagram of the stadium featuring three rows of runners, have been of crucial importance to the modern history of interpretation of Zeno's argument. I believe, however, that Simplicius (and perhaps Alexander as well) already made the fundamental mistake of failing to distinguish in the proper way between Zeno's paradox and Aristotle's refutation, although in Simplicius' case this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that he apparently noticed the joke of Zeno's argument (one doesn\u2019t know if Alexander did). We are not bound, then, to follow Simplicius all, or even half the way, and need not even accept his guidance as to the choice to be made among the variae lectiones. These different readings themselves, so it seems, reflect different ancient interpretations of Aristotle's exposition. In some manuscripts, interpretamenta may have got into the text (as at 240a6), or even have ousted other, more difficult readings (as at 240a11). [introduction p. 1-3]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y2jILmoDyxD389y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1108,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"125","issue":"1","pages":"1-24"}},"sort":["Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium"]}

Diogène d'Apollonie: La dernière cosmologie présocratique, 1983
By: Laks, André
Title Diogène d'Apollonie: La dernière cosmologie présocratique
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1983
Publication Place Sankt Augustin
Publisher Academia-Verlag
Series International pre-Platonic studies
Volume 6
Edition No. 2 (1st 1998)
Categories no categories
Author(s) Laks, André
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Cet ouvrage s'inscrit dans la série des travaux que le Centre de Recherche Philosophique de l'Université de Lille III consacre à l'étude des cosmologies grecques. Après le système classique d'Empédocle et la réflexion critique d'Epicure à l'époque hellénistique, on s'intéresse ici à un penseur charnière, le dernier représentant de l' "ancienne physique".La notoriété de Diogène d'Apollonie est faible, au-delà du cercle restreint des spécialistes du Ve siècle grec. Ce tard venu n'a pas le renom d'Anaximandre ou d'Empédocle, ni celui de Démocrite, dont il est contemporain. Et pourtant, sa pensée n'est pas seulement l'ultime avatar d'une lignée dont il serait au fond indigne. Elle représente au contraire une forme d'achèvement, offrant une solution possible, dans le cadre du paradigme cosmologique hérité, au problème, laissé ouvert par le système d'Anaxagore, du mode d'action de "l'intellect" (νούς) dans le monde. La pertinence et la spécificité de la démarche, qui induit une doctrine de l'immanence, ressortent clairement quand on la confronte avec la célèbre critique d'Anaxagore menée par Socrate au nom de la téléologie dans le Phédon de Platon, et qui signe l'arrêt de mort de la spéculation présocratique. [a.a]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"20","_score":null,"_source":{"id":20,"authors_free":[{"id":21,"entry_id":20,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Diog\u00e8ne d'Apollonie: La derni\u00e8re cosmologie pr\u00e9socratique","main_title":{"title":"Diog\u00e8ne d'Apollonie: La derni\u00e8re cosmologie pr\u00e9socratique"},"abstract":"Cet ouvrage s'inscrit dans la s\u00e9rie des travaux que le Centre de Recherche Philosophique de l'Universit\u00e9 de Lille III consacre \u00e0 l'\u00e9tude des cosmologies grecques. Apr\u00e8s le syst\u00e8me classique d'Emp\u00e9docle et la r\u00e9flexion critique d'Epicure \u00e0 l'\u00e9poque hell\u00e9nistique, on s'int\u00e9resse ici \u00e0 un penseur charni\u00e8re, le dernier repr\u00e9sentant de l' \"ancienne physique\".La notori\u00e9t\u00e9 de Diog\u00e8ne d'Apollonie est faible, au-del\u00e0 du cercle restreint des sp\u00e9cialistes du Ve si\u00e8cle grec. Ce tard venu n'a pas le renom d'Anaximandre ou d'Emp\u00e9docle, ni celui de D\u00e9mocrite, dont il est contemporain. Et pourtant, sa pens\u00e9e n'est pas seulement l'ultime avatar d'une lign\u00e9e dont il serait au fond indigne. Elle repr\u00e9sente au contraire une forme d'ach\u00e8vement, offrant une solution possible, dans le cadre du paradigme cosmologique h\u00e9rit\u00e9, au probl\u00e8me, laiss\u00e9 ouvert par le syst\u00e8me d'Anaxagore, du mode d'action de \"l'intellect\" (\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2) dans le monde. La pertinence et la sp\u00e9cificit\u00e9 de la d\u00e9marche, qui induit une doctrine de l'immanence, ressortent clairement quand on la confronte avec la c\u00e9l\u00e8bre critique d'Anaxagore men\u00e9e par Socrate au nom de la t\u00e9l\u00e9ologie dans le Ph\u00e9don de Platon, et qui signe l'arr\u00eat de mort de la sp\u00e9culation pr\u00e9socratique. [a.a]","btype":1,"date":"1983","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KVFpTS2HQXnKwpF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":20,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia-Verlag","series":"International pre-Platonic studies","volume":"6","edition_no":"2 (1st 1998)","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Diog\u00e8ne d'Apollonie: La derni\u00e8re cosmologie pr\u00e9socratique"]}

Doxographica Anaxagorea, 1975
By: Schofield, Malcom
Title Doxographica Anaxagorea
Type Article
Language English
Date 1975
Journal Hermes
Volume 103
Issue 1
Pages 1-24
Categories no categories
Author(s) Schofield, Malcom
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The information provided by these three texts that Anaxagoras made special application of his general theory of mixture to problems of growth and nutrition derives in each case from Theophrastus, whose word we have no reason to doubt, and who is in any case supported by Aristotle in De Generatione Animalium. The view, again presented in all three texts, that it was from reflection upon such problems, chiefly or in part, that Anaxagoras was led to formulate his general theory again derives from Theophrastus (and solely from him in Aetius's case) or from Aristotle glossed by Theophrastus (in the case of Simplicius and the scholium). For it is Aristotle who says that it was from seeing everything coming out of everything that Anaxagoras arrived at the theory of mixture, it is Aristotle who invariably illustrates Anaxagoras's "all things" by flesh and bone, and it is upon texts of Aristotle containing this explanation and these illustrations that both Simplicius's commentary and the scholium are based. Aristotle does not concentrate on biological processes exclusively, to be sure, but no doubt Theophrastus was acting in the spirit of Aristotle when he illustrates his own Aristotelian exposition of Anaxagoras's train of thought by reference to the problem of nutrition.

How much, then, are the texts to which Jaeger appealed for his account of Anaxagoras's "methodical point of departure" worth? Just and only as much as are Aristotle and Theophrastus. But whether they are right is, as I have said, another story. [conclusion p. 24]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"854","_score":null,"_source":{"id":854,"authors_free":[{"id":1258,"entry_id":854,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":285,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schofield, Malcom","free_first_name":"Malcom","free_last_name":"Schofield","norm_person":{"id":285,"first_name":"Malcolm","last_name":"Schofield","full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132323737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Doxographica Anaxagorea","main_title":{"title":"Doxographica Anaxagorea"},"abstract":"The information provided by these three texts that Anaxagoras made special application of his general theory of mixture to problems of growth and nutrition derives in each case from Theophrastus, whose word we have no reason to doubt, and who is in any case supported by Aristotle in De Generatione Animalium. The view, again presented in all three texts, that it was from reflection upon such problems, chiefly or in part, that Anaxagoras was led to formulate his general theory again derives from Theophrastus (and solely from him in Aetius's case) or from Aristotle glossed by Theophrastus (in the case of Simplicius and the scholium). For it is Aristotle who says that it was from seeing everything coming out of everything that Anaxagoras arrived at the theory of mixture, it is Aristotle who invariably illustrates Anaxagoras's \"all things\" by flesh and bone, and it is upon texts of Aristotle containing this explanation and these illustrations that both Simplicius's commentary and the scholium are based. Aristotle does not concentrate on biological processes exclusively, to be sure, but no doubt Theophrastus was acting in the spirit of Aristotle when he illustrates his own Aristotelian exposition of Anaxagoras's train of thought by reference to the problem of nutrition.\r\n\r\nHow much, then, are the texts to which Jaeger appealed for his account of Anaxagoras's \"methodical point of departure\" worth? Just and only as much as are Aristotle and Theophrastus. But whether they are right is, as I have said, another story. [conclusion p. 24]","btype":3,"date":"1975","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dX7s9j2RuDMGCdU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":285,"full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":854,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"103","issue":"1","pages":"1-24"}},"sort":["Doxographica Anaxagorea"]}

Définition et description: Le problème de la saisie des genres premiers et des individus chez Aristote dans l'exégèse de Simplicius, 1987
By: Narbonne, Jean-Marc
Title Définition et description: Le problème de la saisie des genres premiers et des individus chez Aristote dans l'exégèse de Simplicius
Type Article
Language French
Date 1987
Journal Archives de Philosophie
Volume 50
Pages 529-554
Categories no categories
Author(s) Narbonne, Jean-Marc
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius uses (and distorts) the concept of hypographe (of  Stoic origin) in order to describe the first genera and the particulars which, in Aristotle, are not susceptible to definition. However, a closer examination of the status of science in Aristotle (with reference to the doctrine of incommunicability of genera and the problem of individuation) shows that Simplicius’ attempt is incompatible, or at least difficult to reconcile, with the aristotelianism (of Aristotle). [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1107","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1107,"authors_free":[{"id":1674,"entry_id":1107,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"D\u00e9finition et description: Le probl\u00e8me de la saisie des genres premiers et des individus chez Aristote dans l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"D\u00e9finition et description: Le probl\u00e8me de la saisie des genres premiers et des individus chez Aristote dans l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius uses (and distorts) the concept of hypographe (of Stoic origin) in order to describe the first genera and the particulars which, in Aristotle, are not susceptible to definition. However, a closer examination of the status of science in Aristotle (with reference to the doctrine of incommunicability of genera and the problem of individuation) shows that Simplicius\u2019 attempt is incompatible, or at least difficult to reconcile, with the aristotelianism (of Aristotle). [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/o2VUk12kzrbnaz0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1107,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archives de Philosophie","volume":"50","issue":"","pages":"529-554"}},"sort":["D\u00e9finition et description: Le probl\u00e8me de la saisie des genres premiers et des individus chez Aristote dans l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Simplicius"]}

Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen Überlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios, 1987
By: Harlfinger, Dieter, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen Überlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 267-286
Categories no categories
Author(s) Harlfinger, Dieter
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
In der Geschichte der Simplikios-Philologie spielen Frauen eine besondere Rolle. Aus der Feder der byzantinischen Prinzessin Theodora Palaiologina Rhaulaina (ca. 1240—1300)1 stammt eine der —wie sich zeigen wird — textkritisch relevantesten Handschriften des für die Erforschung der Vorsokratik, der Peripatetik wie auch des Neuplatonismus bekanntermaßen unschätzbaren Kommentars zur aristotelischen Physik des Simplikios. Der zwischen 1261 und 1282 datierende2 Codex Mosquensis Muz. 3649 mit den Büchern I—IV und dem Beginn von Buch V (desinit mutile3 803, 8 Diels4) ist die of- fensichtlich sehr gewissenhafte5 Abschrift jener Frau, die keinesfalls nur als Schreiberin hervorgetreten ist, sondern insbesondere auch als selbständige hagiographische Schriftstellerin, als tätige Patronin eines Scriptoriums und Buchilluminationsateliers, als Besitzerin einer wohl umfangreichen Bibliothek und nicht zuletzt als bedeutendes Mitglied eines Gelehrtenkreises, dem unter anderen auch Maximos Planudes, Gregorios von Zypern und Manuel Holobolos angehörten. Als sich auf Initiative und unter Leitung von Ilsetraut H a d o t die führenden Simplikios-Forscher unserer T a g e im Herbst 1985 in Paris zu ihrem ersten Fachkolloquium versammelten, durfte der Verfasser dieser Zeilen — obwohl kein Simplikianer — unter ihnen referieren, über ebenjenen Mosquensis von der H a n d der Rhaulaina. Ilsetraut H a d o t wußte, daß ich auf einer Bibliotheksreise des Jahres 1966 die Handschrift eingesehen hatte und sie aufgrund der Bewertung des „locus fenestratus" am Ende von Buch III p. 518 als neuen unabhängigen Textträger erkannt zu haben glaubte6. D a s Referat konnte zwar von der Klassifizierung des in der T a t unabhängigen Mosquensis ausgehen, mußte sich aber zur Klärung der stemmatischen Aporien, die beim Studium der Dielsschen Praefatio und des apparatus criticus zutage traten, auf die Situation der Handschrift Ε (Vorlagenwechsel sowie Eb und Eä als dislozierte Partien in Ε bzw. der Vorlage von E) und der Handschrift D (Duktusänderung und Vorlagenwechsel) konzentrieren und konnte darüber hinaus auf die interessante Rolle einer weiteren Moskauer Handschrift (Len) aufmerksam machen und Fingerzeige zu dem einen oder anderen jüngeren Manuskript geben. — Inzwischen habe ich noch einmal über den Codex F nachgedacht und nunmehr fast alle Simplikios-Handschriften im Film — soweit im Berliner Aristoteles-Archiv vorhanden7 — rasch eingese hen8. Im folgenden wage ich — der Veranstalterin des Kolloquiums und Editorin der Akten habe ich dabei für Ermunterung und Geduld zu danken —, meine ersten Eindrücke zu publizieren. Es sind lediglich vorläufige Ergebnisse, die durch systematische Untersuchungen verifiziert werden müßten; hierin ein Plädoyer für eine kodikologische Stemmatik. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"515","_score":null,"_source":{"id":515,"authors_free":[{"id":714,"entry_id":515,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":5,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Harlfinger, Dieter","free_first_name":"Dieter","free_last_name":"Harlfinger","norm_person":{"id":5,"first_name":"Dieter","last_name":"Harlfinger","full_name":"Harlfinger, Dieter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107988674","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":715,"entry_id":515,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen \u00dcberlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen \u00dcberlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios"},"abstract":"In der Geschichte der Simplikios-Philologie spielen Frauen eine besondere Rolle. Aus der Feder der byzantinischen Prinzessin Theodora Palaiologina Rhaulaina (ca. 1240\u20141300)1 stammt eine der \u2014wie sich zeigen wird \u2014 textkritisch relevantesten Handschriften des f\u00fcr die Erforschung der Vorsokratik, der Peripatetik wie auch des Neuplatonismus bekannterma\u00dfen unsch\u00e4tzbaren Kommentars zur aristotelischen Physik des Simplikios. Der zwischen 1261 und 1282 datierende2 Codex Mosquensis Muz. 3649 mit den B\u00fcchern I\u2014IV und dem Beginn von Buch V (desinit mutile3 803, 8 Diels4) ist die of- fensichtlich sehr gewissenhafte5 Abschrift jener Frau, die keinesfalls nur als Schreiberin hervorgetreten ist, sondern insbesondere auch als selbst\u00e4ndige hagiographische Schriftstellerin, als t\u00e4tige Patronin eines Scriptoriums und Buchilluminationsateliers, als Besitzerin einer wohl umfangreichen Bibliothek und nicht zuletzt als bedeutendes Mitglied eines Gelehrtenkreises, dem unter anderen auch Maximos Planudes, Gregorios von Zypern und Manuel Holobolos angeh\u00f6rten. Als sich auf Initiative und unter Leitung von Ilsetraut H a d o t die f\u00fchrenden Simplikios-Forscher unserer T a g e im Herbst 1985 in Paris zu ihrem ersten Fachkolloquium versammelten, durfte der Verfasser dieser Zeilen \u2014 obwohl kein Simplikianer \u2014 unter ihnen referieren, \u00fcber ebenjenen Mosquensis von der H a n d der Rhaulaina. Ilsetraut H a d o t wu\u00dfte, da\u00df ich auf einer Bibliotheksreise des Jahres 1966 die Handschrift eingesehen hatte und sie aufgrund der Bewertung des \u201elocus fenestratus\" am Ende von Buch III p. 518 als neuen unabh\u00e4ngigen Texttr\u00e4ger erkannt zu haben glaubte6. D a s Referat konnte zwar von der Klassifizierung des in der T a t unabh\u00e4ngigen Mosquensis ausgehen, mu\u00dfte sich aber zur Kl\u00e4rung der stemmatischen Aporien, die beim Studium der Dielsschen Praefatio und des apparatus criticus zutage traten, auf die Situation der Handschrift \u0395 (Vorlagenwechsel sowie Eb und E\u00e4 als dislozierte Partien in \u0395 bzw. der Vorlage von E) und der Handschrift D (Duktus\u00e4nderung und Vorlagenwechsel) konzentrieren und konnte dar\u00fcber hinaus auf die interessante Rolle einer weiteren Moskauer Handschrift (Len) aufmerksam machen und Fingerzeige zu dem einen oder anderen j\u00fcngeren Manuskript geben. \u2014 Inzwischen habe ich noch einmal \u00fcber den Codex F nachgedacht und nunmehr fast alle Simplikios-Handschriften im Film \u2014 soweit im Berliner Aristoteles-Archiv vorhanden7 \u2014 rasch eingese hen8. Im folgenden wage ich \u2014 der Veranstalterin des Kolloquiums und Editorin der Akten habe ich dabei f\u00fcr Ermunterung und Geduld zu danken \u2014, meine ersten Eindr\u00fccke zu publizieren. Es sind lediglich vorl\u00e4ufige Ergebnisse, die durch systematische Untersuchungen verifiziert werden m\u00fc\u00dften; hierin ein Pl\u00e4doyer f\u00fcr eine kodikologische Stemmatik. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lJYydaL12PDErlM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":5,"full_name":"Harlfinger, Dieter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":515,"section_of":171,"pages":"267-286","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen \u00dcberlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios"]}

Empedocles B 96 (462 Bollack) and the Poetry of Adhesion, 1984
By: Sider, David
Title Empedocles B 96 (462 Bollack) and the Poetry of Adhesion
Type Article
Language English
Date 1984
Journal Mnemosyne, Fourth Series
Volume 37
Issue 1-2
Pages 14-24
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sider, David
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Notes on Empedocles B 96

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1018","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1018,"authors_free":[{"id":1534,"entry_id":1018,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":320,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sider, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Sider","norm_person":{"id":320,"first_name":"David","last_name":"Sider","full_name":"Sider, David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1129478610","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles B 96 (462 Bollack) and the Poetry of Adhesion","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles B 96 (462 Bollack) and the Poetry of Adhesion"},"abstract":"Notes on Empedocles B 96","btype":3,"date":"1984","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gIM2YVFw7r7XnSS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":320,"full_name":"Sider, David","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1018,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"37","issue":"1-2","pages":"14-24"}},"sort":["Empedocles B 96 (462 Bollack) and the Poetry of Adhesion"]}

Empedocles Recycled, 1987
By: Osborne, Catherine
Title Empedocles Recycled
Type Article
Language English
Date 1987
Journal Classical Quarterly
Volume 37
Issue 1
Pages 24-50
Categories no categories
Author(s) Osborne, Catherine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
It is no longer generally believed that Empedocles was the divided character portrayed by  nineteenth-century  scholars,  a  man  whose  scientific  and  religious  views  were incompatible but untouched  by each  other.  Yet  it  is  still widely held that,  however unitary his  thought,  nevertheless he  still  wrote  more  than  one  poem,  and  that  his poems can be clearly divided between those which do, and those which do not, concern 
'religious matters'.1 Once this assumption can be shown to be shaky or actually false, the  grounds  for  dividing the  quotations  of  Empedocles  into  two  poems  by  subject matter disappear; and without that division our interpretation of  Empedocles stands in  need of  radical revision. This paper starts with  the modest  task  of  showing  that Empedocles may have  written only  one  philosophical  poem  and  not  two,  and  goes on to suggest some of the ways in which we have to rethink the whole story if he did. If all our material belongs to one poem we are bound to link the cycle of the daimones with that of the elements, and this has far-reaching  consequences for our 
interpretation. [Introduction, p. 24]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1092","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1092,"authors_free":[{"id":1650,"entry_id":1092,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":280,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Osborne, Catherine","free_first_name":"Catherine","free_last_name":"Osborne","norm_person":{"id":280,"first_name":"Catherine","last_name":"Rowett","full_name":"Rowett, Catherine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142220116","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles Recycled","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles Recycled"},"abstract":"It is no longer generally believed that Empedocles was the divided character portrayed by nineteenth-century scholars, a man whose scientific and religious views were incompatible but untouched by each other. Yet it is still widely held that, however unitary his thought, nevertheless he still wrote more than one poem, and that his poems can be clearly divided between those which do, and those which do not, concern \r\n'religious matters'.1 Once this assumption can be shown to be shaky or actually false, the grounds for dividing the quotations of Empedocles into two poems by subject matter disappear; and without that division our interpretation of Empedocles stands in need of radical revision. This paper starts with the modest task of showing that Empedocles may have written only one philosophical poem and not two, and goes on to suggest some of the ways in which we have to rethink the whole story if he did. If all our material belongs to one poem we are bound to link the cycle of the daimones with that of the elements, and this has far-reaching consequences for our \r\ninterpretation. [Introduction, p. 24]","btype":3,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IeJ48ZtTcIZFqmP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":280,"full_name":"Rowett, Catherine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1092,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Classical Quarterly","volume":"37","issue":"1","pages":"24-50"}},"sort":["Empedocles Recycled"]}

Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz, 1987
By: Ebert, Theodor, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1987
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Pages 560-583
Categories no categories
Author(s) Ebert, Theodor
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Abhandlung über die Verwendung des Begriffs 'Entelechie' bei Leibnitz: "Daß Leibniz sich, um auf unsere eingangs gestellte Frage zurück­
zukommen,  für  seinen  Begriff  der  Entelechie  nicht  auf Aristoteles 
berufen  kann, dürfte  damit  klar geworden  sein. Aus  einem  Begriff, 
der bei Aristoteles eine Seinsweise von Gegenständen charakterisie­
ren  soll,  ist  bei  Leibniz  ein  Begriff  geworden,  der  Seiendes  selber, 
Monaden nämlich, charakterisiert. Aber dieses Mißverständnis eines 
aristotelischen Begriffs durch Leibniz, das wir damit diagnostizieren 
müssen,  ist  nicht  eine  simple  Fehlinterpretation  des  aristotelischen 
Textes.  Dieses  Mißverständnis ist begünstigt worden durch eine Ar­
gumentation  des  Aristoteles,  die  den  Charakter  einer  dialektischen 
tour  de  force  hat  und  die  von  dem Ausdruck  ,Entelecheia‘ einen  in 
gewissem  Sinn  problematischen  Gebrauch  macht." (p. 582)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"801","_score":null,"_source":{"id":801,"authors_free":[{"id":1183,"entry_id":801,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":76,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ebert, Theodor","free_first_name":"Theodor","free_last_name":"Ebert","norm_person":{"id":76,"first_name":"Theodor","last_name":"Ebert","full_name":"Ebert, Theodor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115820787","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2096,"entry_id":801,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz","main_title":{"title":"Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz"},"abstract":"Abhandlung \u00fcber die Verwendung des Begriffs 'Entelechie' bei Leibnitz: \"Da\u00df Leibniz sich, um auf unsere eingangs gestellte Frage zur\u00fcck\u00ad\r\nzukommen, f\u00fcr seinen Begriff der Entelechie nicht auf Aristoteles \r\nberufen kann, d\u00fcrfte damit klar geworden sein. Aus einem Begriff, \r\nder bei Aristoteles eine Seinsweise von Gegenst\u00e4nden charakterisie\u00ad\r\nren soll, ist bei Leibniz ein Begriff geworden, der Seiendes selber, \r\nMonaden n\u00e4mlich, charakterisiert. Aber dieses Mi\u00dfverst\u00e4ndnis eines \r\naristotelischen Begriffs durch Leibniz, das wir damit diagnostizieren \r\nm\u00fcssen, ist nicht eine simple Fehlinterpretation des aristotelischen \r\nTextes. Dieses Mi\u00dfverst\u00e4ndnis ist beg\u00fcnstigt worden durch eine Ar\u00ad\r\ngumentation des Aristoteles, die den Charakter einer dialektischen \r\ntour de force hat und die von dem Ausdruck ,Entelecheia\u2018 einen in \r\ngewissem Sinn problematischen Gebrauch macht.\" (p. 582)","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3k7VYtKVSM42I1L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":76,"full_name":"Ebert, Theodor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":801,"section_of":189,"pages":"560-583","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz"]}

Epitêdeiolês in Philosophical Literature: Towards an Analysis, 1972
By: Todd, R. B.
Title Epitêdeiolês in Philosophical Literature: Towards an Analysis
Type Article
Language undefined
Date 1972
Journal Acta Classica
Volume 15
Pages 25-35
Categories no categories
Author(s) Todd, R. B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1562","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1562,"authors_free":[{"id":2729,"entry_id":1562,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, R. B.","free_first_name":"R. B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Epit\u00eadeiol\u00eas in Philosophical Literature: Towards an Analysis","main_title":{"title":"Epit\u00eadeiol\u00eas in Philosophical Literature: Towards an Analysis"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/i1HyYnNymEt19CA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1562,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Acta Classica","volume":"15","issue":"","pages":"25-35"}},"sort":["Epit\u00eadeiol\u00eas in Philosophical Literature: Towards an Analysis"]}

Fallgesetz und Massebegriff. Zwei wissenschaftshistorische Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Johannes Philoponus, 1971
By: Wolff, Michael
Title Fallgesetz und Massebegriff. Zwei wissenschaftshistorische Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Johannes Philoponus
Type Monograph
Language German
Date 1971
Publication Place Berlin
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Quellen und Studien zur Philosophie
Volume 2
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wolff, Michael
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In der 1970 gegründeten Reihe erscheinen Arbeiten, die philosophiehistorische Studien mit einem systematischen Ansatz oder systematische Studien mit philosophiehistorischen Rekonstruktionen verbinden. Neben deutschsprachigen werden auch englischsprachige Monographien veröffentlicht. Gründungsherausgeber sind: Erhard Scheibe (Herausgeber bis 1991), Günther Patzig (bis 1999) und Wolfgang Wieland (bis 2003). Von 1990 bis 2007 wurde die Reihe von Jürgen Mittelstraß mitherausgegeben. [official abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"186","_score":null,"_source":{"id":186,"authors_free":[{"id":242,"entry_id":186,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":364,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wolff, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Wolff","norm_person":{"id":364,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Wolff","full_name":"Wolff, Michael","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131523120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Fallgesetz und Massebegriff. Zwei wissenschaftshistorische Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Johannes Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Fallgesetz und Massebegriff. Zwei wissenschaftshistorische Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Johannes Philoponus"},"abstract":"In der 1970 gegr\u00fcndeten Reihe erscheinen Arbeiten, die philosophiehistorische Studien mit einem systematischen Ansatz oder systematische Studien mit philosophiehistorischen Rekonstruktionen verbinden. Neben deutschsprachigen werden auch englischsprachige Monographien ver\u00f6ffentlicht. Gr\u00fcndungsherausgeber sind: Erhard Scheibe (Herausgeber bis 1991), G\u00fcnther Patzig (bis 1999) und Wolfgang Wieland (bis 2003). Von 1990 bis 2007 wurde die Reihe von J\u00fcrgen Mittelstra\u00df mitherausgegeben. [official abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1971","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AtlPN4QA7mZzias","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":364,"full_name":"Wolff, Michael","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":186,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Quellen und Studien zur Philosophie","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Fallgesetz und Massebegriff. Zwei wissenschaftshistorische Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Johannes Philoponus"]}

Ficino's Lecture on the Good?, 1977
By: Allen, Michael J. B.
Title Ficino's Lecture on the Good?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1977
Journal Renaissance Quarterly
Volume 30
Issue 2
Pages 160-171
Categories no categories
Author(s) Allen, Michael J. B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This article discusses Plato's Lecture on the Good, the only lecture attributed to Plato by ancient sources. The lecture was attended by Aristotle and other students of Plato and was described as a blend of formal exposition, digressions, and asides. Although it was not a public success, the Lecture became famous in the ancient world for what the Neoplatonists presumed was its Pythagorean content. The Lecture played a role in the history of fifteenth-century Florentine Platonism under its chief architect, Marsilio Ficino, who was interested in reviving Neoplatonism and wedding it to Christianity while also dreaming of revitalizing the day-to-day life of the ancient Athenian Academy. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1261","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1261,"authors_free":[{"id":1847,"entry_id":1261,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":33,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Allen, Michael J. B.","free_first_name":"Michael J. B.","free_last_name":"Allen","norm_person":{"id":33,"first_name":"Michael J. B. ","last_name":"Allen","full_name":"Allen, Michael J. B. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12310405X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ficino's Lecture on the Good?","main_title":{"title":"Ficino's Lecture on the Good?"},"abstract":"This article discusses Plato's Lecture on the Good, the only lecture attributed to Plato by ancient sources. The lecture was attended by Aristotle and other students of Plato and was described as a blend of formal exposition, digressions, and asides. Although it was not a public success, the Lecture became famous in the ancient world for what the Neoplatonists presumed was its Pythagorean content. The Lecture played a role in the history of fifteenth-century Florentine Platonism under its chief architect, Marsilio Ficino, who was interested in reviving Neoplatonism and wedding it to Christianity while also dreaming of revitalizing the day-to-day life of the ancient Athenian Academy. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/P2WTHK3pKgeUa4u","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":33,"full_name":"Allen, Michael J. B. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1261,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Renaissance Quarterly ","volume":"30","issue":"2","pages":"160-171"}},"sort":["Ficino's Lecture on the Good?"]}

Filologisch-Historische Navorsingen over de Middleeuwse En Humanistische Latijnse Vertalingen van Den Commentaren van Simplicius, Deel I: De Commentaren In Ench., In Phys., In Cat., In De Anima; Deel II: De Commentaar In De Caelo; Deel III: Teksten En Documenten (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leuven), 1975
By: Bossier, Fernand
Title Filologisch-Historische Navorsingen over de Middleeuwse En Humanistische Latijnse Vertalingen van Den Commentaren van Simplicius, Deel I: De Commentaren In Ench., In Phys., In Cat., In De Anima; Deel II: De Commentaar In De Caelo; Deel III: Teksten En Documenten (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leuven)
Type Monograph
Language Dutch
Date 1975
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bossier, Fernand
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1433","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1433,"authors_free":[{"id":2262,"entry_id":1433,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bossier, Fernand","free_first_name":"Fernand","free_last_name":"Bossier","norm_person":{"id":12,"first_name":"Fernand ","last_name":"Bossier","full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017981663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Filologisch-Historische Navorsingen over de Middleeuwse En Humanistische Latijnse Vertalingen van Den Commentaren van Simplicius, Deel I: De Commentaren In Ench., In Phys., In Cat., In De Anima; Deel II: De Commentaar In De Caelo; Deel III: Teksten En Documenten (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leuven)","main_title":{"title":"Filologisch-Historische Navorsingen over de Middleeuwse En Humanistische Latijnse Vertalingen van Den Commentaren van Simplicius, Deel I: De Commentaren In Ench., In Phys., In Cat., In De Anima; Deel II: De Commentaar In De Caelo; Deel III: Teksten En Documenten (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leuven)"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1975","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OlxW2LFE8sTQ8aZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Filologisch-Historische Navorsingen over de Middleeuwse En Humanistische Latijnse Vertalingen van Den Commentaren van Simplicius, Deel I: De Commentaren In Ench., In Phys., In Cat., In De Anima; Deel II: De Commentaar In De Caelo; Deel III: Teksten En Documenten (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leuven)"]}

Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?, 1989
By: Mansfeld, Jaap, Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Steinmetz, Peter (Ed.)
Title Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1989
Published in Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos
Pages 133-158
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mansfeld, Jaap
Editor(s) Fortenbaugh, William W. , Steinmetz, Peter
Translator(s)
Unter Hinweis auf Cicero, Lucullus (= Academica priora II) 118 und 123, Tusculanae disputationes I 18 ff. und De natura deorum I 25 ff. hat Hermann Diels diese Frage bekanntlich bejaht. Die wichtigste Stelle, auf die ich mich aus mehreren Gründen beschränke, ist dabei der Passus über die Prinzipien (Luc. 118), wo der Dissens (dissensio, Luc. 117) der Philosophen von Thales bis zu Platon und den Pythagoreern kritisiert wird. Diels hat hier ganz auffallend argumentiert.

Zum einen hat er, teilweise zu Recht, auf Übereinstimmungen zwischen Luc. 118 und den entsprechenden Theophrast-Fragmenten bzw. Paraphrasen in Simplikios’ Kommentar zur aristotelischen Physik hingewiesen, die Usener und er den Physica opinionum zugewiesen haben. Als nächstes aber hat er Luc. 119–121 über die stoische Theorie der Vorsehung (SVF I 92 u. 1161) und über Aristoteles (De philos. fr. 20 Ross) und Stratons (fr. 32 Wehrli) entgegengesetzte Auffassungen ausgeklammert, weil dieses Stück nicht auf Theophrast zurückgeführt werden könne.

Aus den nachfolgenden Paragraphen, die über verschiedene Ansichten von den Himmelskörpern und der Erde referieren, hat er schließlich 123 „Hiketas von Syrakus, wie Theophrast sagt“ (Hicetas Syracosius, ut ait Theophrastus …) usw. wieder als Beweis dafür angezogen, dass die doxographische Übersicht zur Astronomie aus den Physica opinionum stamme.

In der Nachfolge Krisches hatte schließlich schon Diels zu Recht bemerkt, dass Ciceros unmittelbare Quelle ein Akademiker, wohl ein Karneadesschüler, sein müsse. Das Textstück über Hiketas (auch abgedruckt in Vorsokr. 51.1) hat er als Physica opinionum fr. 18 aufgenommen (DG 492–3). Es ist dies der einzige Cicerotext in der betreffenden Dielsschen Sammlung. [introduction p. 133]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"930","_score":null,"_source":{"id":930,"authors_free":[{"id":1375,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1376,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1377,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":378,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Steinmetz","norm_person":{"id":378,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Steinmetz","full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11891913X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?","main_title":{"title":"Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?"},"abstract":"Unter Hinweis auf Cicero, Lucullus (= Academica priora II) 118 und 123, Tusculanae disputationes I 18 ff. und De natura deorum I 25 ff. hat Hermann Diels diese Frage bekanntlich bejaht. Die wichtigste Stelle, auf die ich mich aus mehreren Gr\u00fcnden beschr\u00e4nke, ist dabei der Passus \u00fcber die Prinzipien (Luc. 118), wo der Dissens (dissensio, Luc. 117) der Philosophen von Thales bis zu Platon und den Pythagoreern kritisiert wird. Diels hat hier ganz auffallend argumentiert.\r\n\r\nZum einen hat er, teilweise zu Recht, auf \u00dcbereinstimmungen zwischen Luc. 118 und den entsprechenden Theophrast-Fragmenten bzw. Paraphrasen in Simplikios\u2019 Kommentar zur aristotelischen Physik hingewiesen, die Usener und er den Physica opinionum zugewiesen haben. Als n\u00e4chstes aber hat er Luc. 119\u2013121 \u00fcber die stoische Theorie der Vorsehung (SVF I 92 u. 1161) und \u00fcber Aristoteles (De philos. fr. 20 Ross) und Stratons (fr. 32 Wehrli) entgegengesetzte Auffassungen ausgeklammert, weil dieses St\u00fcck nicht auf Theophrast zur\u00fcckgef\u00fchrt werden k\u00f6nne.\r\n\r\nAus den nachfolgenden Paragraphen, die \u00fcber verschiedene Ansichten von den Himmelsk\u00f6rpern und der Erde referieren, hat er schlie\u00dflich 123 \u201eHiketas von Syrakus, wie Theophrast sagt\u201c (Hicetas Syracosius, ut ait Theophrastus \u2026) usw. wieder als Beweis daf\u00fcr angezogen, dass die doxographische \u00dcbersicht zur Astronomie aus den Physica opinionum stamme.\r\n\r\nIn der Nachfolge Krisches hatte schlie\u00dflich schon Diels zu Recht bemerkt, dass Ciceros unmittelbare Quelle ein Akademiker, wohl ein Karneadessch\u00fcler, sein m\u00fcsse. Das Textst\u00fcck \u00fcber Hiketas (auch abgedruckt in Vorsokr. 51.1) hat er als Physica opinionum fr. 18 aufgenommen (DG 492\u20133). Es ist dies der einzige Cicerotext in der betreffenden Dielsschen Sammlung. [introduction p. 133]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MGhjgtg4bJWxFhu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":378,"full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":930,"section_of":334,"pages":"133-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":334,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1989b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"Cicero is best known for his political speeches. His Catilinarian orations are regularly studied in third or fourth year Latin; his self-proclaimed role as savior of the Republic is much discussed in courses on Roman history. But, however fascinating such material may be, there is another side to Cicero which is equally important and only now receiving the attention it deserves. This is Cicero's interest in Hellenistic thought. As a young man he studied philosophy in Greece; throughout his life he maintained a keen interest in intellectual history; and during periods of political inactivity - especially in his last years as the Republic collapsed - he wrote treatises that today are invaluable sources for our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, including the School of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe essays collected in this volume deal with these treatises and in particular with Cicero's knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy. They ask such questions as: Did Cicero-know Aristotle first hand, or was the corpus Aristotelicum unavailable to him and his contemporaries? Did Cicero have access to the writings of Theophrastus, and in general did he know the post-Aristotelians whose works are all but lost to us? When Cicero reports the views of early philosophers, is he a reliable witness, and is he conveying important information? These and other fundamental questions are asked with special reference to traditional areas of Greek thought: logic and rhetoric, politics and ethics, physics, psychology, and theology. The answers are various, but the overall impression is clear: Cicero himself was a highly intelligent, well educated Roman, whose treatises contain significant material. Scholars working on Peripatetic thought and on the Hellenistic period as a whole cannot afford to ignore them.\r\n\r\nThis fourth volume in the Rutgers University Studies in Classic Humanities series deals with Cicero, orator and writer of the late Roman Republic. Interest in Cicero arose out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking based at Rutgers dedicated to collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus. This collection will be of value to philologists, classicists, philosophers, as well as those interested in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":334,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?"]}

God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy, 1971
By: Whittaker, John H.
Title God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1971
Publication Place Oslo
Publisher Universitetsforlaget
Series Symbolae Osloenses
Volume 23
Categories no categories
Author(s) Whittaker, John H.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Es geht um die im Platonismus entwickelte Vorstellung einer Gottheit eigenen
zeitlosen, zeit3berlegenen Ewigkeit, die von Plotin aus (Enneaden III 7) die abend-
lindische Theologie und Mystik stark beeinfluf3t hat. Zugrunde liegt Platons
Spekulation 3ber Aion und Chronos, Timaios 73 c-38 c; ausformuliert ist die
These vom ewigen Jetzt fur unsere Kenntnis erstmals im mittleren Platonismus
(Plutarch, De E ap. Delph. 393 A-C). Doch hat sie der Neuplatonismus - sicher-
lich zu Unrecht - bereits in ein beruhmtes Parmenides-Fragment (8, 5 D.-Kr., wo
es vom Sein heift, dag ,alles jetzt zusammen ist", nach U. Hoelscher) hinein-
gelesen. Der Verf., der diese Oberlieferungsverhiltnisse klarend darlegt, unterzieht
das Fragment im ersten Teil seiner Arbeit einer scharfsinnigen, reich dokumen-
tierten Analyse. Dabei wird die Ansicht begrundet, dai3 die Texte unserer spht-
antiken Zeugen (Simplikios einerseits, die vier alexandrinischen Ausleger andrer-
seits) nicht iber jeden Zweifel erhaben sind. Es k6nnte sein, daf3 bei Simplikios
- dem die modernen Ausgaben zu folgen pflegen - eine neuplatonische Adaption
des parmenideischen Wortlauts vorliegt, so daf die uberlieferte Form von Parm.
8, 5 fur die Ermittlung der Lehre des grof3enEleaten ausscheiden muf3te - ein fur
die Vorsokratikerforschung recht erhebliches Ergebnis. - In einer zweiten Unter-
suchung geht der Verf. dem gleichen Motiv (,Gottes ewiges Heute': der Leser der
augustinischen Confessionen hat es aus dem grofartigen Lobpreis XI 13 in Erinne-
rung) bei Philon von Alexandria nach, wobei sich ein belehrender Einblick in die
platonistisdhe Tradition ergibt (verwunderlich, daf3 Clemens von Alexandria nach
Migne's Patrologie, Maximos von Tyros nach der alten Dibner'sdlen Ausgabe
zitiert werden). Auch aristotelische und stoische Einflusse werden gepruft. W. stellt
fest, daf3 die meisten Philonstellen, die man bisher im Sinn der neuplatonischen
Lehre von einer zeitüberlegenen Ewigkeit gedeutet hatte, anders zu erklaren
sind; eine Ausnahme scheint in einer allegorischen Auslegung des Alten Testaments
(zu Levit. 2, 14) vorzuliegen (de sacrif. 76). Es bleibt dabei, daf3 das weitreidiende
Thema in voller Klarheit erstmals in Plutarchs ob. gen. Dialog angesprochen wird;
er hangt sicher mit dem seit Ende des 1. Jh. v. Chr. wieder rege gewordenen
Studium des platonischen Timaios zusammen, welches in dem Kommentar des
Alexandriners Eudoros, eines pythagoreisierenden Platonikers, moglicherweiseeine
Quelle Plutarchs hervorgebracht hat (hier ware auf eine den Problemen des mitt-
leren Platonismus gewidmete Arbeit H. Dbrrie's hinzuweisen gewesen, in: Les
Sourdes de Plotin, Entresiens sur L'Antiquite Classique, t. V, 1957 193 it)." (Review, H. Strohm)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"144","_score":null,"_source":{"id":144,"authors_free":[{"id":182,"entry_id":144,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":411,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Whittaker, John H.","free_first_name":"John H.","free_last_name":"Whittaker","norm_person":{"id":411,"first_name":"John H.","last_name":"Whittaker","full_name":"Whittaker, John H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124441203","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy"},"abstract":"Es geht um die im Platonismus entwickelte Vorstellung einer Gottheit eigenen\r\nzeitlosen, zeit3berlegenen Ewigkeit, die von Plotin aus (Enneaden III 7) die abend-\r\nlindische Theologie und Mystik stark beeinfluf3t hat. Zugrunde liegt Platons\r\nSpekulation 3ber Aion und Chronos, Timaios 73 c-38 c; ausformuliert ist die\r\nThese vom ewigen Jetzt fur unsere Kenntnis erstmals im mittleren Platonismus\r\n(Plutarch, De E ap. Delph. 393 A-C). Doch hat sie der Neuplatonismus - sicher-\r\nlich zu Unrecht - bereits in ein beruhmtes Parmenides-Fragment (8, 5 D.-Kr., wo\r\nes vom Sein heift, dag ,alles jetzt zusammen ist\", nach U. Hoelscher) hinein-\r\ngelesen. Der Verf., der diese Oberlieferungsverhiltnisse klarend darlegt, unterzieht\r\ndas Fragment im ersten Teil seiner Arbeit einer scharfsinnigen, reich dokumen-\r\ntierten Analyse. Dabei wird die Ansicht begrundet, dai3 die Texte unserer spht-\r\nantiken Zeugen (Simplikios einerseits, die vier alexandrinischen Ausleger andrer-\r\nseits) nicht iber jeden Zweifel erhaben sind. Es k6nnte sein, daf3 bei Simplikios\r\n- dem die modernen Ausgaben zu folgen pflegen - eine neuplatonische Adaption\r\ndes parmenideischen Wortlauts vorliegt, so daf die uberlieferte Form von Parm.\r\n8, 5 fur die Ermittlung der Lehre des grof3enEleaten ausscheiden muf3te - ein fur\r\ndie Vorsokratikerforschung recht erhebliches Ergebnis. - In einer zweiten Unter-\r\nsuchung geht der Verf. dem gleichen Motiv (,Gottes ewiges Heute': der Leser der\r\naugustinischen Confessionen hat es aus dem grofartigen Lobpreis XI 13 in Erinne-\r\nrung) bei Philon von Alexandria nach, wobei sich ein belehrender Einblick in die\r\nplatonistisdhe Tradition ergibt (verwunderlich, daf3 Clemens von Alexandria nach\r\nMigne's Patrologie, Maximos von Tyros nach der alten Dibner'sdlen Ausgabe\r\nzitiert werden). Auch aristotelische und stoische Einflusse werden gepruft. W. stellt\r\nfest, daf3 die meisten Philonstellen, die man bisher im Sinn der neuplatonischen\r\nLehre von einer zeit\u00fcberlegenen Ewigkeit gedeutet hatte, anders zu erklaren\r\nsind; eine Ausnahme scheint in einer allegorischen Auslegung des Alten Testaments\r\n(zu Levit. 2, 14) vorzuliegen (de sacrif. 76). Es bleibt dabei, daf3 das weitreidiende\r\nThema in voller Klarheit erstmals in Plutarchs ob. gen. Dialog angesprochen wird;\r\ner hangt sicher mit dem seit Ende des 1. Jh. v. Chr. wieder rege gewordenen\r\nStudium des platonischen Timaios zusammen, welches in dem Kommentar des\r\nAlexandriners Eudoros, eines pythagoreisierenden Platonikers, moglicherweiseeine\r\nQuelle Plutarchs hervorgebracht hat (hier ware auf eine den Problemen des mitt-\r\nleren Platonismus gewidmete Arbeit H. Dbrrie's hinzuweisen gewesen, in: Les\r\nSourdes de Plotin, Entresiens sur L'Antiquite Classique, t. V, 1957 193 it).\" (Review, H. Strohm)","btype":1,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gmCTvOKY6YxDRe4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":411,"full_name":"Whittaker, John H.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":144,"pubplace":"Oslo","publisher":"Universitetsforlaget","series":"Symbolae Osloenses","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy"]}

Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75, 1988
By: Duffy, John (Ed.), Peradotto, John J. (Ed.)
Title Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1988
Publication Place Buffalo – New York
Publisher Arethusa
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Duffy, John , Peradotto, John J.
Translator(s)
This volume, dedicated to the scholar Leendert G. Westerink, comprises 16 articles across two main areas of his research interests: Neo-Platonic and Byzantine studies. The six Neo-Platonic articles explore subjects such as manuscript histories, philosophical debates, and influences of figures like Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus. Notably, Father Saffrey investigates an anonymous commentary on Parmenides, while other authors delve into Neo-Platonic mathematics, hymns, and commentaries on Aristotle’s discussions of reason.

The ten Byzantine studies articles cover a diverse range of historical and cultural insights. Topics include Byzantine letter-writing practices, with George Dennis highlighting humor in personal correspondence, and Cyril Mango examining the collapse of St. Sophia. Further articles focus on figures such as Psellus, Patriarch Cosmas, and fourteenth-century scholar Georgios Karbones, alongside explorations of political and religious tensions in the Ionian Islands under various European rulers. This collection offers an in-depth look at both Neo-Platonic philosophy and Byzantine cultural dynamics, illustrating the intellectual legacy of Westerink’s scholarship. [summary of Lucas Siorvanes' Review]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"35","_score":null,"_source":{"id":35,"authors_free":[{"id":41,"entry_id":35,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":109,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Duffy, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Duffy","norm_person":{"id":109,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Duffy","full_name":"Duffy, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032769092","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":42,"entry_id":35,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":110,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Peradotto, John J.","free_first_name":"John J.","free_last_name":"Peradotto","norm_person":{"id":110,"first_name":"John J.","last_name":"Peradotto","full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172304636","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75","main_title":{"title":"Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75"},"abstract":"This volume, dedicated to the scholar Leendert G. Westerink, comprises 16 articles across two main areas of his research interests: Neo-Platonic and Byzantine studies. The six Neo-Platonic articles explore subjects such as manuscript histories, philosophical debates, and influences of figures like Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus. Notably, Father Saffrey investigates an anonymous commentary on Parmenides, while other authors delve into Neo-Platonic mathematics, hymns, and commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason.\r\n\r\nThe ten Byzantine studies articles cover a diverse range of historical and cultural insights. Topics include Byzantine letter-writing practices, with George Dennis highlighting humor in personal correspondence, and Cyril Mango examining the collapse of St. Sophia. Further articles focus on figures such as Psellus, Patriarch Cosmas, and fourteenth-century scholar Georgios Karbones, alongside explorations of political and religious tensions in the Ionian Islands under various European rulers. This collection offers an in-depth look at both Neo-Platonic philosophy and Byzantine cultural dynamics, illustrating the intellectual legacy of Westerink\u2019s scholarship. [summary of Lucas Siorvanes' Review]","btype":4,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QCXOrqqEdxnvWCD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":109,"full_name":"Duffy, John","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":110,"full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":35,"pubplace":"Buffalo \u2013 New York","publisher":"Arethusa","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75"]}

Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas, 1989
By: Steel, Carlos, Brams, Jozef (Ed.), Vanhamel, Willy (Ed.)
Title Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1989
Published in Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)
Pages 57-82
Categories no categories
Author(s) Steel, Carlos
Editor(s) Brams, Jozef , Vanhamel, Willy
Translator(s)
On peut difficilement expliquer l’utilisation privilégiée des traductions de Moerbeke dont témoigne l’œuvre de saint Thomas, si on n’admet pas que les deux hommes aient été en relation directe. Certes, Guillaume a commencé son projet de traduction sans l’initiative ou l’encouragement de Thomas. Mais, quand ce dernier eut pris connaissance du travail de son confrère (probablement lors d’une rencontre à Viterbe), il a commencé à utiliser ses traductions. Il est même probable qu’il a commandé quelques fois lui-même une traduction. Les données manquent pour pouvoir parler d’une véritable collaboration entre les deux hommes.

D’ailleurs, je n’ai pas l’impression que leurs intérêts intellectuels étaient convergents. Si on peut prendre le prologue de la Perspectiva de Witelo comme un témoignage indirect sur la pensée de Guillaume, il semble qu’il avait une préférence pour une philosophie platonisante, avec un intérêt particulier pour la philosophie de la nature et l’astronomie (-logie?). Il avait probablement plus de connaturalité intellectuelle avec son jeune ami et compatriote Henri Bate (qui lui a dédié son traité sur la composition de l’astrolabe) qu’avec le théologien-philosophe Thomas d’Aquin.

Quoi qu’il en soit, il est hors de doute que Thomas a pu profiter largement du travail de son confrère. Selon la tradition, Thomas aurait pris des initiatives pour obtenir de nouvelles traductions d’Aristote. Les faits que nous avons examinés ne sont pas en contradiction avec ce témoignage. Mais, comme il arrive fréquemment dans une tradition hagiographique, on accentue tellement les exploits du héros principal qu’on a tendance à réduire l’activité des contemporains à celle de « collaborateurs » et à minimiser leur apport original.

D’où la tradition que Guillaume de Moerbeke aurait entrepris tout son travail ad instantiam fratris Thomae. L’étude de l’histoire des traductions et les remarques critiques du F. Gauthier nous ont obligés à limiter nettement la portée de ce témoignage. Cette étude a restitué ainsi à Moerbeke son autonomie et son originalité intellectuelle. Mais elle a confirmé également qu’il y a eu communication scientifique entre les deux dominicains (ce qui est le noyau solide de la tradition).

Thomas a très vite compris l’importance du travail de son confrère. Il en a profité le premier, et c’est probablement grâce à son autorité que des traductions de Moerbeke ont commencé à circuler à Paris, et à partir de là dans la culture latine. [conclusion p. 81-82]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1388","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1388,"authors_free":[{"id":2147,"entry_id":1388,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2148,"entry_id":1388,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":337,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brams, Jozef","free_first_name":"Jozef","free_last_name":"Brams","norm_person":{"id":337,"first_name":"Jozef","last_name":"Brams","full_name":"Brams, Jozef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145645712","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2149,"entry_id":1388,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":338,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","free_first_name":"Willy","free_last_name":"Vanhamel","norm_person":{"id":338,"first_name":"Willy","last_name":"Vanhamel","full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141109661","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas","main_title":{"title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas"},"abstract":"On peut difficilement expliquer l\u2019utilisation privil\u00e9gi\u00e9e des traductions de Moerbeke dont t\u00e9moigne l\u2019\u0153uvre de saint Thomas, si on n\u2019admet pas que les deux hommes aient \u00e9t\u00e9 en relation directe. Certes, Guillaume a commenc\u00e9 son projet de traduction sans l\u2019initiative ou l\u2019encouragement de Thomas. Mais, quand ce dernier eut pris connaissance du travail de son confr\u00e8re (probablement lors d\u2019une rencontre \u00e0 Viterbe), il a commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 utiliser ses traductions. Il est m\u00eame probable qu\u2019il a command\u00e9 quelques fois lui-m\u00eame une traduction. Les donn\u00e9es manquent pour pouvoir parler d\u2019une v\u00e9ritable collaboration entre les deux hommes.\r\n\r\nD\u2019ailleurs, je n\u2019ai pas l\u2019impression que leurs int\u00e9r\u00eats intellectuels \u00e9taient convergents. Si on peut prendre le prologue de la Perspectiva de Witelo comme un t\u00e9moignage indirect sur la pens\u00e9e de Guillaume, il semble qu\u2019il avait une pr\u00e9f\u00e9rence pour une philosophie platonisante, avec un int\u00e9r\u00eat particulier pour la philosophie de la nature et l\u2019astronomie (-logie?). Il avait probablement plus de connaturalit\u00e9 intellectuelle avec son jeune ami et compatriote Henri Bate (qui lui a d\u00e9di\u00e9 son trait\u00e9 sur la composition de l\u2019astrolabe) qu\u2019avec le th\u00e9ologien-philosophe Thomas d\u2019Aquin.\r\n\r\nQuoi qu\u2019il en soit, il est hors de doute que Thomas a pu profiter largement du travail de son confr\u00e8re. Selon la tradition, Thomas aurait pris des initiatives pour obtenir de nouvelles traductions d\u2019Aristote. Les faits que nous avons examin\u00e9s ne sont pas en contradiction avec ce t\u00e9moignage. Mais, comme il arrive fr\u00e9quemment dans une tradition hagiographique, on accentue tellement les exploits du h\u00e9ros principal qu\u2019on a tendance \u00e0 r\u00e9duire l\u2019activit\u00e9 des contemporains \u00e0 celle de \u00ab collaborateurs \u00bb et \u00e0 minimiser leur apport original.\r\n\r\nD\u2019o\u00f9 la tradition que Guillaume de Moerbeke aurait entrepris tout son travail ad instantiam fratris Thomae. L\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019histoire des traductions et les remarques critiques du F. Gauthier nous ont oblig\u00e9s \u00e0 limiter nettement la port\u00e9e de ce t\u00e9moignage. Cette \u00e9tude a restitu\u00e9 ainsi \u00e0 Moerbeke son autonomie et son originalit\u00e9 intellectuelle. Mais elle a confirm\u00e9 \u00e9galement qu\u2019il y a eu communication scientifique entre les deux dominicains (ce qui est le noyau solide de la tradition).\r\n\r\nThomas a tr\u00e8s vite compris l\u2019importance du travail de son confr\u00e8re. Il en a profit\u00e9 le premier, et c\u2019est probablement gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 son autorit\u00e9 que des traductions de Moerbeke ont commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 circuler \u00e0 Paris, et \u00e0 partir de l\u00e0 dans la culture latine. [conclusion p. 81-82]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3D0JB4FJderQiIl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":337,"full_name":"Brams, Jozef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":338,"full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1388,"section_of":326,"pages":"57-82","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":326,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brams1989","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"T h e following articles are included in this volume: \"Moerbeke, traducteur et inter-\r\nprete: Un texte et une pensee\" by Gerard Verbeke (pp. 1-21); \"Guillaume de Moer-\r\nbeke et la cour pontificale\" by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (pp. 23-52); \"Note con-\r\ncernant certaines missions qui auraient ete confiees a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by\r\nWilly Vanhamel (pp. 53-56); \"Guillaume de Moerbeke et saint Thomas\" by Carlos\r\nSteel (pp. 57-82); \"Pietro d'Abano e l'utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di\r\nMoerbeke del commento di Simplicio al \/\/ De caelo di Aristotele\" by Graziella Federici\r\nVescovini (pp. 83-106); \"Quelques utilisateurs des textes rares de Moerbeke\r\n(Philopon, Tria opuscula) et particulierement Jacques de Viterbe\" by Louis Jacques\r\nBataillon (pp. 107-12); \"Quelques remarques codicologiques et paleographiques\r\nau sujet du ms. Vaticano Ottob. lat. 1850\" by Robert Wielockx (pp. 113-33);\r\n\"La liste des ceuvres d'Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr. 100: Un\r\nautographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 135-83);\r\n\"Note concernant la collation d'un deuxieme manuscrit grec de la Physique\r\npar Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Jozef Brams and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp.\r\n185-92); \"La 'Recensio Matritensis' de la Physique\" by Jozef Brams (pp. 193-220);\r\n\"La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (Analisi del\r\nlibro I)\" by Pietro Rossi (pp. 221-45); \"L'attribution de la Translatio nova du De\r\ngenerations et corruptione a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Joanna Judycka (pp. 247-51);\r\n\"Iudicialia ad Syrum: Une traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke du Quadripartitum\r\nde Cl. Ptol\u00a3mee\" by Luc Anthonis (pp. 253-55); \"Methode de traduction et\r\nproblemes de chronologie\" by Fernand Bossier (pp. 257-94); \"L'usage des mots\r\nhybrides greco-latins par Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp.\r\n295-99); and \"Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Willy Vanhamel\r\n(pp. 301-83).","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kM52uB2YgiCytgt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":326,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas"]}

Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286), 1989
By: Brams, Jozef (Ed.), Vanhamel, Willy (Ed.)
Title Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1989
Publication Place Leuven
Publisher Leuven University Press
Series Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1
Volume 7
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Brams, Jozef , Vanhamel, Willy
Translator(s)
T h e following articles are included in this volume: "Moerbeke, traducteur et inter-
prete: Un texte et une pensee" by Gerard Verbeke (pp. 1-21); "Guillaume de Moer-
beke et la cour pontificale" by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (pp. 23-52); "Note con-
cernant certaines missions qui auraient ete confiees a Guillaume de Moerbeke" by
Willy Vanhamel (pp. 53-56); "Guillaume de Moerbeke et saint Thomas" by Carlos
Steel (pp. 57-82); "Pietro d'Abano e l'utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di
Moerbeke del commento di Simplicio al // De caelo di Aristotele" by Graziella Federici
Vescovini (pp. 83-106); "Quelques utilisateurs des textes rares de Moerbeke
(Philopon, Tria opuscula) et particulierement Jacques de Viterbe" by Louis Jacques
Bataillon (pp. 107-12); "Quelques remarques codicologiques et paleographiques
au sujet du ms. Vaticano Ottob. lat. 1850" by Robert Wielockx (pp. 113-33);
"La liste des ceuvres d'Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr. 100: Un
autographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke" by Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 135-83);
"Note concernant la collation d'un deuxieme manuscrit grec de la Physique
par Guillaume de Moerbeke" by Jozef Brams and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp.
185-92); "La 'Recensio Matritensis' de la Physique" by Jozef Brams (pp. 193-220);
"La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (Analisi del
libro I)" by Pietro Rossi (pp. 221-45); "L'attribution de la Translatio nova du De
generations et corruptione a Guillaume de Moerbeke" by Joanna Judycka (pp. 247-51);
"Iudicialia ad Syrum: Une traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke du Quadripartitum
de Cl. Ptol£mee" by Luc Anthonis (pp. 253-55); "Methode de traduction et
problemes de chronologie" by Fernand Bossier (pp. 257-94); "L'usage des mots
hybrides greco-latins par Guillaume de Moerbeke" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp.
295-99); and "Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke" by Willy Vanhamel
(pp. 301-83).

{"_index":"sire","_id":"326","_score":null,"_source":{"id":326,"authors_free":[{"id":416,"entry_id":326,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":337,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brams, Jozef","free_first_name":"Jozef","free_last_name":"Brams","norm_person":{"id":337,"first_name":"Jozef","last_name":"Brams","full_name":"Brams, Jozef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145645712","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":417,"entry_id":326,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":338,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","free_first_name":"Willy","free_last_name":"Vanhamel","norm_person":{"id":338,"first_name":"Willy","last_name":"Vanhamel","full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141109661","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)","main_title":{"title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)"},"abstract":"T h e following articles are included in this volume: \"Moerbeke, traducteur et inter-\r\nprete: Un texte et une pensee\" by Gerard Verbeke (pp. 1-21); \"Guillaume de Moer-\r\nbeke et la cour pontificale\" by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (pp. 23-52); \"Note con-\r\ncernant certaines missions qui auraient ete confiees a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by\r\nWilly Vanhamel (pp. 53-56); \"Guillaume de Moerbeke et saint Thomas\" by Carlos\r\nSteel (pp. 57-82); \"Pietro d'Abano e l'utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di\r\nMoerbeke del commento di Simplicio al \/\/ De caelo di Aristotele\" by Graziella Federici\r\nVescovini (pp. 83-106); \"Quelques utilisateurs des textes rares de Moerbeke\r\n(Philopon, Tria opuscula) et particulierement Jacques de Viterbe\" by Louis Jacques\r\nBataillon (pp. 107-12); \"Quelques remarques codicologiques et paleographiques\r\nau sujet du ms. Vaticano Ottob. lat. 1850\" by Robert Wielockx (pp. 113-33);\r\n\"La liste des ceuvres d'Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr. 100: Un\r\nautographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 135-83);\r\n\"Note concernant la collation d'un deuxieme manuscrit grec de la Physique\r\npar Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Jozef Brams and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp.\r\n185-92); \"La 'Recensio Matritensis' de la Physique\" by Jozef Brams (pp. 193-220);\r\n\"La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (Analisi del\r\nlibro I)\" by Pietro Rossi (pp. 221-45); \"L'attribution de la Translatio nova du De\r\ngenerations et corruptione a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Joanna Judycka (pp. 247-51);\r\n\"Iudicialia ad Syrum: Une traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke du Quadripartitum\r\nde Cl. Ptol\u00a3mee\" by Luc Anthonis (pp. 253-55); \"Methode de traduction et\r\nproblemes de chronologie\" by Fernand Bossier (pp. 257-94); \"L'usage des mots\r\nhybrides greco-latins par Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp.\r\n295-99); and \"Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Willy Vanhamel\r\n(pp. 301-83).","btype":4,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kM52uB2YgiCytgt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":337,"full_name":"Brams, Jozef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":338,"full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":326,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)"]}

Infinity and the Creation, 1987
By: Sorabji, Richard, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Infinity and the Creation
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science
Pages 164-178
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
The arguments of Philoponus on which I want to focus concern the Christian view that the universe had a beginning. But here already I must draw a distinction. For in talking of the universe beginning, I am not talking merely of the present orderly arrangement of the earth, sun, moon, and stars. Many pagans would have accepted that the present arrangement of matter had a beginning. What, with very few exceptions, they all thought absurd was that matter itself should have had a beginning.

Indeed, Jews and Christians themselves were embarrassed about this doctrine and were by no means unanimous in accepting it. It has been suggested that the oldest references to creation in the Old Testament come in Job, and that there God is envisaged as imposing order on pre-existing matter, not as creating matter itself. It has further been doubted whether there is any clear statement in the Bible of creation out of nothing. The opinion of Philo the Jew, in the first century A.D., is a matter of controversy, but I believe that he takes different sides in different works.

A little later, Hermogenes and others offered a surprising reason for denying matter a beginning. They pointed to the use of the word "was" in the opening of Genesis, where it is said that the earth was without form and void, and they took the use of the past tense to show that earth, or matter, was already in existence when the Creator began work. It is often held, although I am not inclined to agree myself, that Boethius endorsed the Neoplatonist view of a beginningless universe at the end of his Consolation of Philosophy.

What I would acknowledge is that other Christians in these centuries, such as Synesius and Elias, did deny the universe a beginning or end under the influence of Platonism. If we skip to the thirteenth century, we find Thomas Aquinas and his teacher Albert the Great saying that it cannot be established by philosophy one way or the other whether the universe had a beginning. It is only Scripture which reveals that it did.

Two slightly younger contemporaries in Paris went a step further—indeed, a step too far. Boethius of Dacia (the Dane, not the sixth-century Roman) and Siger of Brabant maintained that philosophical argument showed the universe to be beginningless, but that nonetheless, reason must bow to revelation. They had to flee Paris in the condemnation of 1277, and there is a tradition that Siger was murdered. [introduction p. 165-167]

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

Ionian Philosophy, 1989
By: Boudouris, Konstantin, J. (Ed.)
Title Ionian Philosophy
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1989
Publication Place Athen
Publisher International Association for Greek Philosophy and Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture
Series Studies in Greek Philosophy
Volume 1
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Boudouris, Konstantin, J.
Translator(s)
‘The articles in this volume are, in the main, the texts of papers read either in full or in part at the First International Conference on Greek Philosophy (Samos 1988)’ (from the editor’s Preface).  Appropriately  to  such  a  first  conference,  it  was  devoted  to  the  beginnings  of philosophy  in  Greece  and,  more  specifically,  in  Ionia  itself.  The volume includes  forty- seven papers dealing with all the major figures of Ionian philosophy, from the Milesians to Anaxagoras.  Pythagoras,  the  most  illustrious  native  of  Samos,  and  the  Pythagoreans (technically  considered  an  ‘Italian’  sect,  but  included  by  courtesy  in  the  theme  of the conference), attract the attention of seven scholars. The other notable Samian, Melissus, is the  subject of only one  contribution, by  D.  Furley,  possibly because Melissus  is usually
BOOK REVIEWS   141classified by the doxographers as an Eleatic. Xenophanes of Colophon is dealt with in five of the  articles.  Perhaps  not  surprisingly,  almost  half of the  papers  deal  with  Heraclitus  of Ephesus, just across the water from Samos. Among those excluded from this book are the Italians Parmenides, Zeno and Empedocles, and the atomists of Abdera" [Review Scolnicov]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"238","_score":null,"_source":{"id":238,"authors_free":[{"id":2413,"entry_id":238,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":328,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin, J.","free_first_name":"Konstantin, J.","free_last_name":"Boudouris","norm_person":{"id":328,"first_name":"Konstantin J.","last_name":"Boudouris,","full_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1041800053","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ionian Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Ionian Philosophy"},"abstract":"\u2018The articles in this volume are, in the main, the texts of papers read either in full or in part at the First International Conference on Greek Philosophy (Samos 1988)\u2019 (from the editor\u2019s Preface). Appropriately to such a first conference, it was devoted to the beginnings of philosophy in Greece and, more specifically, in Ionia itself. The volume includes forty- seven papers dealing with all the major figures of Ionian philosophy, from the Milesians to Anaxagoras. Pythagoras, the most illustrious native of Samos, and the Pythagoreans (technically considered an \u2018Italian\u2019 sect, but included by courtesy in the theme of the conference), attract the attention of seven scholars. The other notable Samian, Melissus, is the subject of only one contribution, by D. Furley, possibly because Melissus is usually\r\nBOOK REVIEWS 141classified by the doxographers as an Eleatic. Xenophanes of Colophon is dealt with in five of the articles. Perhaps not surprisingly, almost half of the papers deal with Heraclitus of Ephesus, just across the water from Samos. Among those excluded from this book are the Italians Parmenides, Zeno and Empedocles, and the atomists of Abdera\" [Review Scolnicov]","btype":4,"date":"1989","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9oSZ8qRrH4iopVv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":328,"full_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":238,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"International Association for Greek Philosophy and Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture","series":"Studies in Greek Philosophy","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Ionian Philosophy"]}

Jamblique exégète du pythagoricien Archytas: trois originalités d’une doctrine du temps, 1980
By: Hoffmann, Philippe
Title Jamblique exégète du pythagoricien Archytas: trois originalités d’une doctrine du temps
Type Article
Language French
Date 1980
Journal Les Études philosophiques
Volume 3
Pages 307-323
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Le développement de la philosophie grecque tardive est inséparable de l'exégèse de textes canoniques, parmi lesquels les traités d'Aristote et les dialogues de Platon occupent une place tout à fait particulière. Dans le cadre d'une pratique essentiellement scolaire, la tâche du commentateur est d'expliciter une vérité supposée donnée à l'origine, présente dans le texte qui est lu. On a déjà fait remarquer la fécondité philosophique des faux sens, contresens ou déviations qui ne manquent pas de se produire à l'occasion de ces exégèses : c'est par ce travail de l'erreur qu'apparaît souvent une nouveauté doctrinale, et tout se passe comme si la philosophie aimait à se nourrir d'analyses philologiquement erronées ou insoutenables.

Nous voudrions présenter ici un exemple typique de ce phénomène : comment une exégèse néoplatonicienne d'un "faux" pythagoricien a permis l'apparition d'une pensée nouvelle du temps.

Lorsqu'il explique la doctrine aristotélicienne du temps dans ses commentaires aux Catégories et à la Physique, Simplicius suit les traces de Jamblique, aux yeux de qui la source d'Aristote est le pythagoricien Archytas de Tarente. [introduction p. 307]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"686","_score":null,"_source":{"id":686,"authors_free":[{"id":1019,"entry_id":686,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Jamblique ex\u00e9g\u00e8te du pythagoricien Archytas: trois originalit\u00e9s d\u2019une doctrine du temps","main_title":{"title":"Jamblique ex\u00e9g\u00e8te du pythagoricien Archytas: trois originalit\u00e9s d\u2019une doctrine du temps"},"abstract":"Le d\u00e9veloppement de la philosophie grecque tardive est ins\u00e9parable de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de textes canoniques, parmi lesquels les trait\u00e9s d'Aristote et les dialogues de Platon occupent une place tout \u00e0 fait particuli\u00e8re. Dans le cadre d'une pratique essentiellement scolaire, la t\u00e2che du commentateur est d'expliciter une v\u00e9rit\u00e9 suppos\u00e9e donn\u00e9e \u00e0 l'origine, pr\u00e9sente dans le texte qui est lu. On a d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait remarquer la f\u00e9condit\u00e9 philosophique des faux sens, contresens ou d\u00e9viations qui ne manquent pas de se produire \u00e0 l'occasion de ces ex\u00e9g\u00e8ses : c'est par ce travail de l'erreur qu'appara\u00eet souvent une nouveaut\u00e9 doctrinale, et tout se passe comme si la philosophie aimait \u00e0 se nourrir d'analyses philologiquement erron\u00e9es ou insoutenables.\r\n\r\nNous voudrions pr\u00e9senter ici un exemple typique de ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne : comment une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'un \"faux\" pythagoricien a permis l'apparition d'une pens\u00e9e nouvelle du temps.\r\n\r\nLorsqu'il explique la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne du temps dans ses commentaires aux Cat\u00e9gories et \u00e0 la Physique, Simplicius suit les traces de Jamblique, aux yeux de qui la source d'Aristote est le pythagoricien Archytas de Tarente. [introduction p. 307]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/67kpJTeAGPd2zao","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":686,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"307-323"}},"sort":["Jamblique ex\u00e9g\u00e8te du pythagoricien Archytas: trois originalit\u00e9s d\u2019une doctrine du temps"]}

John Philoponus, 1987
By: Sorabji, Richard, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title John Philoponus
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science
Pages 1-40
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
This chapter delves into the life and intellectual contributions of John Philoponus, a pivotal figure bridging Neoplatonism and Christianity. It explores his relationship with Ammonius and examines how his Christian faith influenced his philosophical and scientific endeavors. The text covers Philoponus' critique of the Aristotelian worldview, focusing on key topics such as the creation of the universe, the impetus theory of dynamics, and the concept of velocity in a vacuum. It also addresses his innovative ideas about vacuum and space, his challenges to Aristotle's notions of natural place, and his interpretation of matter as extension.

Philoponus is recognized for disrupting Aristotle's categorical framework, rejecting the fifth element, and presenting novel theories about the directionality of light. The chapter reflects on his attacks on Aristotle in retrospect, highlighting the interplay between his scientific theories and Christian doctrines, including Christ, the Trinity, resurrection, and the soul. Additionally, the chapter examines his influence on later thought, tracing his intellectual antecedents and the chronology of his writings. [Derived from the entire text]

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

John Philoponus' criticism of Aristotle's theory of aether, 1988
By: Wildberg, Christian
Title John Philoponus' criticism of Aristotle's theory of aether
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1988
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Peripatoi
Volume 16
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wildberg, Christian
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The  foremost aim  of the  contra  Aristotelem    is the denial  of the  thesis  that  the  world  is  eternal.  Apart  from  his  rejection  of  Aristotle's  argu-ments   for  the  eternity   of  motion   and  time,21   Philoponus'   criticism   focuses  on  Aristotle's  cosmology,  in  particular  the  seminal  theory  of  aether.   In  books   I —V  of  the  original   treatise  Philoponus  cites   the   arguments  put  forward  in  De  cáelo  12 — 4  and  attempts  to  refute  them  systematically.22  Due  to  the  fragmentation  of  the  treatise  his  objections  can  no  longer  be  considered  within  their  original  context,  and  quite  often  the  significance  of  particular  points  against  Aristotle  is  not  im-mediately  obvious.  In  order  to  do  Philoponus'  arguments  justice,  one  must  analyse  Aristotle's  theory  of  aether  before  one  embarks  on  commeriting  on  Philoponus'  critique.  Consequently,  the  present  study  con-sists  of  two  major  sections.  The  first  part  discusses  the  methodology  and  arguments  of  Aristotle's  presentation  of  the  theory  of  aether.  Its  aim  is  to  understand  and  evaluate  this  important  episode  of  ancient  science  within  the  framework  of  Aristotle's  general  physical  theory.  The  second  part  deals  with  Philoponus'  objections  to  the  postu-lation  of  aether.  The  commentary  attempts  to  evaluate  the  significance  of    the  fragments  of  books  I —V  as  a  critique  of  Aristotle  and,  at  the  same time,  to cast  light  on their  relevance  in  the  context  of  Philoponus'  alternative  cosmological  theory.  The  essay  concludes  with  a summary  comparison  of Aristotle's  and  Philoponus'  cosmological  tenets  and  a  discussion  of  the  importance  of  the  contra   Aristotelem    when  viewed  as  a stage  in Philoponus'  continuous  doctrinal  development  which  culminates  in  the  application  of  impetus  theory  to  the  curvilinear  movements  of  the  heavens.  [Introduction p. 4-5]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"187","_score":null,"_source":{"id":187,"authors_free":[{"id":243,"entry_id":187,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus' criticism of Aristotle's theory of aether","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus' criticism of Aristotle's theory of aether"},"abstract":"The foremost aim of the contra Aristotelem is the denial of the thesis that the world is eternal. Apart from his rejection of Aristotle's argu-ments for the eternity of motion and time,21 Philoponus' criticism focuses on Aristotle's cosmology, in particular the seminal theory of aether. In books I \u2014V of the original treatise Philoponus cites the arguments put forward in De c\u00e1elo 12 \u2014 4 and attempts to refute them systematically.22 Due to the fragmentation of the treatise his objections can no longer be considered within their original context, and quite often the significance of particular points against Aristotle is not im-mediately obvious. In order to do Philoponus' arguments justice, one must analyse Aristotle's theory of aether before one embarks on commeriting on Philoponus' critique. Consequently, the present study con-sists of two major sections. The first part discusses the methodology and arguments of Aristotle's presentation of the theory of aether. Its aim is to understand and evaluate this important episode of ancient science within the framework of Aristotle's general physical theory. The second part deals with Philoponus' objections to the postu-lation of aether. The commentary attempts to evaluate the significance of the fragments of books I \u2014V as a critique of Aristotle and, at the same time, to cast light on their relevance in the context of Philoponus' alternative cosmological theory. The essay concludes with a summary comparison of Aristotle's and Philoponus' cosmological tenets and a discussion of the importance of the contra Aristotelem when viewed as a stage in Philoponus' continuous doctrinal development which culminates in the application of impetus theory to the curvilinear movements of the heavens. [Introduction p. 4-5]","btype":1,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/J9OJ5u7Pb62D7np","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":187,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi ","volume":"16","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["John Philoponus' criticism of Aristotle's theory of aether"]}

John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?, 1986
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1986
Journal Hermes
Volume 114
Pages 314–335
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
What, in the end, can we say about Philoponus’ position as a Platonist, bearing in mind that our conclusions must still in some respects be provision­al? That he was a Neoplatonist is indisputable. Since, however, few if any, of 
his differences with other Neoplatonists seem to arise from the adoption of a specifically Alexandrian philosophical point of view, we must attribute them to his own philosophical -  and theological -  orientation. It turns out that, in 
his case,  »Alexandrian Platonist« may mean little more than a man whose philosophy  was  Neoplatonic,  and  who  worked  at Alexandria,  though  one might observe that there would not have been a warm welcome at Athens for a 
Christian  Neoplatonist,  however closely his  views  might  conform to those codified by Proclus and developed by Damascius.  One could go on to say 
that,  apart from the concentration on Aristotle, his differences from other Alexandrians were greater than theirs from the Athenians. In this connection 
we should notice Philoponus’ frequent appeals to Plato against Aristotle in the passages Simplicius singles out for complaint, and his relatively frequent reservations about the agreement, symphônia, of Plato and Aristotle, which 
most  others  eagerly  sought  to  demonstrate.  And  since  we  started  with  a critique of P r a e c h t e r ,  who did so much to initiate the serious study of the 
Aristotelian commentators, it might be appropriate to end with his characteri­
sation of Philoponus in the De aeternitate mundi: »es ist der gelehrte Platoniker der spricht«. [conclusion, p. 334-335]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"628","_score":null,"_source":{"id":628,"authors_free":[{"id":888,"entry_id":628,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?"},"abstract":"What, in the end, can we say about Philoponus\u2019 position as a Platonist, bearing in mind that our conclusions must still in some respects be provision\u00adal? That he was a Neoplatonist is indisputable. Since, however, few if any, of \r\nhis differences with other Neoplatonists seem to arise from the adoption of a specifically Alexandrian philosophical point of view, we must attribute them to his own philosophical - and theological - orientation. It turns out that, in \r\nhis case, \u00bbAlexandrian Platonist\u00ab may mean little more than a man whose philosophy was Neoplatonic, and who worked at Alexandria, though one might observe that there would not have been a warm welcome at Athens for a \r\nChristian Neoplatonist, however closely his views might conform to those codified by Proclus and developed by Damascius. One could go on to say \r\nthat, apart from the concentration on Aristotle, his differences from other Alexandrians were greater than theirs from the Athenians. In this connection \r\nwe should notice Philoponus\u2019 frequent appeals to Plato against Aristotle in the passages Simplicius singles out for complaint, and his relatively frequent reservations about the agreement, symph\u00f4nia, of Plato and Aristotle, which \r\nmost others eagerly sought to demonstrate. And since we started with a critique of P r a e c h t e r , who did so much to initiate the serious study of the \r\nAristotelian commentators, it might be appropriate to end with his characteri\u00ad\r\nsation of Philoponus in the De aeternitate mundi: \u00bbes ist der gelehrte Platoniker der spricht\u00ab. [conclusion, p. 334-335]\r\n","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cP5twq2fWJQvBVn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":628,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"114","issue":"","pages":"314\u2013335"}},"sort":["John Philoponus: Alexandrian Platonist?"]}

Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World, 1988
By: Broek, Roelof van den (Ed.), Baarda, Tjitze (Ed.), Mansfeld, Jaap (Ed.)
Title Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1988
Publication Place Leiden
Publisher Brill
Series Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain
Volume 112
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"337","_score":null,"_source":{"id":337,"authors_free":[{"id":434,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":435,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":436,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","main_title":{"title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1988","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World"]}

L'Astronomie dans l'antiquité classique. Actes du Colloque tenu à l'Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21–23 Octobre, 1977, 1979
By: Aujac, Germaine (Ed.), Soubiran, Jean (Ed.)
Title L'Astronomie dans l'antiquité classique. Actes du Colloque tenu à l'Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21–23 Octobre, 1977
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1979
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Les Belles Lettres
Series Collection d'Études Anciennes
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Aujac, Germaine , Soubiran, Jean
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"140","_score":null,"_source":{"id":140,"authors_free":[{"id":175,"entry_id":140,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":183,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aujac, Germaine","free_first_name":"Germaine","free_last_name":"Aujac","norm_person":{"id":183,"first_name":"Germaine","last_name":"Aujac","full_name":"Aujac, Germaine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132761629","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":176,"entry_id":140,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":184,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Soubiran, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"Soubiran","norm_person":{"id":184,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"Soubiran","full_name":"Soubiran, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124279694","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'Astronomie dans l'antiquit\u00e9 classique. Actes du Colloque tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21\u201323 Octobre, 1977","main_title":{"title":"L'Astronomie dans l'antiquit\u00e9 classique. Actes du Colloque tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21\u201323 Octobre, 1977"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1979","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TPeLfUa6KvbM1BN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":183,"full_name":"Aujac, Germaine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":184,"full_name":"Soubiran, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":140,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Anciennes","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["L'Astronomie dans l'antiquit\u00e9 classique. Actes du Colloque tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21\u201323 Octobre, 1977"]}

L'ecole néoplatonicienne d'Athènes, 1990
By: Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Title L'ecole néoplatonicienne d'Athènes
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1990
Published in Recherches sur le néoplatonisme après Plotin
Pages 127-129
Categories no categories
Author(s) Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
À l’intérieur du vaste mouvement philosophique que l’on désigne globalement sous le nom de néo-platonisme et qui se développe du IIIe au VIe siècle après J.-C., on distingue des écoles diverses.

Fondé à Rome par Plotin, qui y enseigne de 245 à 270, et maintenu vivant sur place par Porphyre et ses successeurs (dont plusieurs passèrent au christianisme, par exemple Marius Victorinus), le néo-platonisme se répandit d’abord en Asie Mineure et spécialement à Apamée et Antioche, où enseigna Jamblique. Celui-ci réussit à amalgamer la métaphysique plotinienne et les théories et pratiques de la théurgie en vogue dans l’Orient grec. Cette synthèse fournit à l’empereur Julien l’Apostat une base doctrinale pour le renouveau de la religion païenne qu’il tenta de faire triompher sous son règne (361-363).

De cette école syrienne sortirent deux rameaux d’inégale valeur : d’une part, l’école de Pergame, franchement adonnée à la magie et délaissant entièrement le vieux rationalisme grec, et, d’autre part, l’école d’Athènes, qui parviendra à se greffer sur la souche de l’antique Académie de Platon au début du Ve siècle.

À peu près au même moment, un autre rejeton paraîtra à Alexandrie, et cette école survivra même à celle d’Athènes pour faire passer au monde arabe vers la fin du VIe siècle tout le capital du néo-platonisme. [introduction p. 126]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1174","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1174,"authors_free":[{"id":1749,"entry_id":1174,"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":"L'ecole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'Ath\u00e8nes","main_title":{"title":"L'ecole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'Ath\u00e8nes"},"abstract":"\u00c0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur du vaste mouvement philosophique que l\u2019on d\u00e9signe globalement sous le nom de n\u00e9o-platonisme et qui se d\u00e9veloppe du IIIe au VIe si\u00e8cle apr\u00e8s J.-C., on distingue des \u00e9coles diverses.\r\n\r\nFond\u00e9 \u00e0 Rome par Plotin, qui y enseigne de 245 \u00e0 270, et maintenu vivant sur place par Porphyre et ses successeurs (dont plusieurs pass\u00e8rent au christianisme, par exemple Marius Victorinus), le n\u00e9o-platonisme se r\u00e9pandit d\u2019abord en Asie Mineure et sp\u00e9cialement \u00e0 Apam\u00e9e et Antioche, o\u00f9 enseigna Jamblique. Celui-ci r\u00e9ussit \u00e0 amalgamer la m\u00e9taphysique plotinienne et les th\u00e9ories et pratiques de la th\u00e9urgie en vogue dans l\u2019Orient grec. Cette synth\u00e8se fournit \u00e0 l\u2019empereur Julien l\u2019Apostat une base doctrinale pour le renouveau de la religion pa\u00efenne qu\u2019il tenta de faire triompher sous son r\u00e8gne (361-363).\r\n\r\nDe cette \u00e9cole syrienne sortirent deux rameaux d\u2019in\u00e9gale valeur : d\u2019une part, l\u2019\u00e9cole de Pergame, franchement adonn\u00e9e \u00e0 la magie et d\u00e9laissant enti\u00e8rement le vieux rationalisme grec, et, d\u2019autre part, l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, qui parviendra \u00e0 se greffer sur la souche de l\u2019antique Acad\u00e9mie de Platon au d\u00e9but du Ve si\u00e8cle.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 peu pr\u00e8s au m\u00eame moment, un autre rejeton para\u00eetra \u00e0 Alexandrie, et cette \u00e9cole survivra m\u00eame \u00e0 celle d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes pour faire passer au monde arabe vers la fin du VIe si\u00e8cle tout le capital du n\u00e9o-platonisme. [introduction p. 126]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZrGOMqaxAxCT1p0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1174,"section_of":1461,"pages":"127-129","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1461,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Recherches sur le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Saffrey1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PXWKxSDEtCXXJtb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1461,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Histoire des doctrines de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["L'ecole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'Ath\u00e8nes"]}

L'homonymie entre Aristote et ses commentateurs néo-platoniciens, 1981
By: Narcy, Michel
Title L'homonymie entre Aristote et ses commentateurs néo-platoniciens
Type Article
Language French
Date 1981
Journal Les Études philosophiques
Volume 1
Pages 35-52
Categories no categories
Author(s) Narcy, Michel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This text discusses the expression of Neoplatonism after Plotinus, which was primarily in the form of commentary on earlier works. However, this method can lead to errors and departures from the original ideas. The article examines how this applies to interpretations of homonymy in Aristotle's Categories, which are inconsistent among commentators. The author suggests that by examining how homonymy is used to resolve specific problems, one can better understand its meaning and transformation from Aristotle to Neoplatonism. The discussion centers on a passage in Simplicius's commentary on Categories in which he comments on Aristotle's remarks about the paronymous naming of beings defined by their quality. The author compares Simplicius's comments to Aristotle's original text, and argues that the former intentionally misrepresents the latter. [derived from the introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1104","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1104,"authors_free":[{"id":1667,"entry_id":1104,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":277,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narcy, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Narcy","norm_person":{"id":277,"first_name":"Michel","last_name":"Narcy","full_name":"Narcy, Michel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129449512","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'homonymie entre Aristote et ses commentateurs n\u00e9o-platoniciens","main_title":{"title":"L'homonymie entre Aristote et ses commentateurs n\u00e9o-platoniciens"},"abstract":"This text discusses the expression of Neoplatonism after Plotinus, which was primarily in the form of commentary on earlier works. However, this method can lead to errors and departures from the original ideas. The article examines how this applies to interpretations of homonymy in Aristotle's Categories, which are inconsistent among commentators. The author suggests that by examining how homonymy is used to resolve specific problems, one can better understand its meaning and transformation from Aristotle to Neoplatonism. The discussion centers on a passage in Simplicius's commentary on Categories in which he comments on Aristotle's remarks about the paronymous naming of beings defined by their quality. The author compares Simplicius's comments to Aristotle's original text, and argues that the former intentionally misrepresents the latter. [derived from the introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LehHtPQbB1BKLEC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":277,"full_name":"Narcy, Michel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1104,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"35-52"}},"sort":["L'homonymie entre Aristote et ses commentateurs n\u00e9o-platoniciens"]}

La Physique d’Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs, 1981
By: Verbeke, Gérard, Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs N. (Ed.)
Title La Physique d’Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1981
Published in Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978
Categories no categories
Author(s) Verbeke, Gérard
Editor(s) Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs N.
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"185","_score":null,"_source":{"id":185,"authors_free":[{"id":241,"entry_id":185,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2506,"entry_id":185,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_first_name":" I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La Physique d\u2019Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs","main_title":{"title":"La Physique d\u2019Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WCFPRwh1E2k3zgK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":185,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Minist\u00e8re de la culture et des sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":185,"section_of":1459,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1459,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O3DQotq4JIjFp7W","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La Physique d\u2019Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs"]}

La Physique d’Empédocle selon Simplicius, 1989
By: Stevens, Annick
Title La Physique d’Empédocle selon Simplicius
Type Article
Language French
Date 1989
Journal Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire
Volume 67
Issue 1
Pages 65-74
Categories no categories
Author(s) Stevens, Annick
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
J'en arrive à faire la synthèse de l'apport positif et original qui résulte de l'étude de Simplicius. Tout d'abord, quand il ne se démarque pas de la tradition doxographique, c'est qu'elle transmet l'interprétation la plus plausible : ainsi, la matérialité des racines à partir desquelles sont créés tous les corps et l'explication de leurs mélanges par l'introduction de principes de création, auxquels il donne un nom assez prudent pour ne pas offrir prise à la réfutation. Remarquons en outre sa clairvoyance quant au choix de la désignation des principes créateurs à partir de notions connues dans le réel observable, pour décrire le réel invisible.

D'autre part, Simplicius se démarque des autres doxographes anciens en refusant la conception d'un cycle cosmique à quatre phases. Là encore, si l'on veut respecter le texte d'Empédocle, on ne peut que lui donner raison : seuls deux stades cosmiques sont décrits : le tout unifié de la Sphère (où la Haine, néanmoins, n'est pas détruite mais retirée aux confins) et la multiplicité née de l'opposition des deux principes créateurs. Il fallait en effet souligner que ni l'un ni l'autre ne peut créer seul ; en ce sens, ils sont, autant qu'opposés, complémentaires.

Reste à savoir si ces deux stades existent alternativement ou simultanément et, à ce propos, il est clair que Simplicius a voulu imposer la vision néo-platonicienne au détriment de la stricte observation du texte. Ses arguments en faveur de la « double disposition » sont faibles et parfois même péremptoires, dans la mesure où il annihile les passages qui le gênent en les qualifiant de « fiction poétique ».

En revanche, sa « solution de rechange », qui fait état d'une coexistence entre le mouvement et une certaine forme d'immobilité (donc, d'une certaine manière, d'une double manifestation du réel) — cette immobilité résultant de l'incessant roulement du devenir —, cette conception, loin d'entrer en contradiction avec ce que nous savons des théories présocratiques en général et empédocléenne en particulier, est extrêmement intéressante et peut ouvrir la voie à un nouvel examen approfondi du poème d'Empédocle. [conclusion p. 74]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"480","_score":null,"_source":{"id":480,"authors_free":[{"id":650,"entry_id":480,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":323,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stevens, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Stevens","norm_person":{"id":323,"first_name":" Annick","last_name":"Stevens","full_name":"Stevens, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1195240120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La Physique d\u2019Emp\u00e9docle selon Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La Physique d\u2019Emp\u00e9docle selon Simplicius"},"abstract":"J'en arrive \u00e0 faire la synth\u00e8se de l'apport positif et original qui r\u00e9sulte de l'\u00e9tude de Simplicius. Tout d'abord, quand il ne se d\u00e9marque pas de la tradition doxographique, c'est qu'elle transmet l'interpr\u00e9tation la plus plausible : ainsi, la mat\u00e9rialit\u00e9 des racines \u00e0 partir desquelles sont cr\u00e9\u00e9s tous les corps et l'explication de leurs m\u00e9langes par l'introduction de principes de cr\u00e9ation, auxquels il donne un nom assez prudent pour ne pas offrir prise \u00e0 la r\u00e9futation. Remarquons en outre sa clairvoyance quant au choix de la d\u00e9signation des principes cr\u00e9ateurs \u00e0 partir de notions connues dans le r\u00e9el observable, pour d\u00e9crire le r\u00e9el invisible.\r\n\r\nD'autre part, Simplicius se d\u00e9marque des autres doxographes anciens en refusant la conception d'un cycle cosmique \u00e0 quatre phases. L\u00e0 encore, si l'on veut respecter le texte d'Emp\u00e9docle, on ne peut que lui donner raison : seuls deux stades cosmiques sont d\u00e9crits : le tout unifi\u00e9 de la Sph\u00e8re (o\u00f9 la Haine, n\u00e9anmoins, n'est pas d\u00e9truite mais retir\u00e9e aux confins) et la multiplicit\u00e9 n\u00e9e de l'opposition des deux principes cr\u00e9ateurs. Il fallait en effet souligner que ni l'un ni l'autre ne peut cr\u00e9er seul ; en ce sens, ils sont, autant qu'oppos\u00e9s, compl\u00e9mentaires.\r\n\r\nReste \u00e0 savoir si ces deux stades existent alternativement ou simultan\u00e9ment et, \u00e0 ce propos, il est clair que Simplicius a voulu imposer la vision n\u00e9o-platonicienne au d\u00e9triment de la stricte observation du texte. Ses arguments en faveur de la \u00ab double disposition \u00bb sont faibles et parfois m\u00eame p\u00e9remptoires, dans la mesure o\u00f9 il annihile les passages qui le g\u00eanent en les qualifiant de \u00ab fiction po\u00e9tique \u00bb.\r\n\r\nEn revanche, sa \u00ab solution de rechange \u00bb, qui fait \u00e9tat d'une coexistence entre le mouvement et une certaine forme d'immobilit\u00e9 (donc, d'une certaine mani\u00e8re, d'une double manifestation du r\u00e9el) \u2014 cette immobilit\u00e9 r\u00e9sultant de l'incessant roulement du devenir \u2014, cette conception, loin d'entrer en contradiction avec ce que nous savons des th\u00e9ories pr\u00e9socratiques en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral et emp\u00e9docl\u00e9enne en particulier, est extr\u00eamement int\u00e9ressante et peut ouvrir la voie \u00e0 un nouvel examen approfondi du po\u00e8me d'Emp\u00e9docle. [conclusion p. 74]","btype":3,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tQhjx4b0GzJ1L5S","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":323,"full_name":"Stevens, Annick","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":480,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire","volume":"67","issue":"1","pages":"65-74"}},"sort":["La Physique d\u2019Emp\u00e9docle selon Simplicius"]}

La Récupération d'Anaxagore, 1980
By: Ramnoux, Clémence
Title La Récupération d'Anaxagore
Type Article
Language French
Date 1980
Journal Archives de Philosophie
Volume 43
Issue 1
Pages 75-98
Categories no categories
Author(s) Ramnoux, Clémence
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The author meant to «recuperate» the Fragments of Anaxagoras, most of which are transmitted in the Commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle's Physics I, 4, without severing them from their context. While doing so he was interested in the neo-platonicist presentation itself, and also in the modern interpretations proceeding from it, enhancing an interpretative tradition. The first article inquires into the presentation of doctrines by dichotomic confrontation and into the problem of contrary couples. Following on the recuperation of the Fragments of Anaxagoras in a neo-platonic context, the second article presents the doctrine of the Spirit as agent both of thinking discrimination and of mechanical separation which starts from the original gathering, and which is both thought and subtantial. It examines subsequently how far a doctrine of the plurality of worlds can be attributed to Anaxagoras. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1063","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1063,"authors_free":[{"id":1613,"entry_id":1063,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":295,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ramnoux, Cl\u00e9mence","free_first_name":"Cl\u00e9mence","free_last_name":"Ramnoux","norm_person":{"id":295,"first_name":"Cl\u00e9mence","last_name":"Ramnoux","full_name":"Ramnoux, Cl\u00e9mence","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1219538949","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La R\u00e9cup\u00e9ration d'Anaxagore","main_title":{"title":"La R\u00e9cup\u00e9ration d'Anaxagore"},"abstract":"The author meant to \u00abrecuperate\u00bb the Fragments of Anaxagoras, most of which are transmitted in the Commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle's Physics I, 4, without severing them from their context. While doing so he was interested in the neo-platonicist presentation itself, and also in the modern interpretations proceeding from it, enhancing an interpretative tradition. The first article inquires into the presentation of doctrines by dichotomic confrontation and into the problem of contrary couples. Following on the recuperation of the Fragments of Anaxagoras in a neo-platonic context, the second article presents the doctrine of the Spirit as agent both of thinking discrimination and of mechanical separation which starts from the original gathering, and which is both thought and subtantial. It examines subsequently how far a doctrine of the plurality of worlds can be attributed to Anaxagoras. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5IeMTnUXyCXR7VK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":295,"full_name":"Ramnoux, Cl\u00e9mence","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1063,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archives de Philosophie","volume":"43","issue":"1","pages":"75-98"}},"sort":["La R\u00e9cup\u00e9ration d'Anaxagore"]}

La Récupération d'Anaxagore II, 1980
By: Ramnoux, Clémence
Title La Récupération d'Anaxagore II
Type Article
Language French
Date 1980
Journal Archives de Philosophie
Volume 43
Pages 279-297
Categories no categories
Author(s) Ramnoux, Clémence
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The text discusses the concept of the mind and plurality of worlds in Anaxagoras' philosophy. It focuses on a fragment that is the longest and most extensive in relation to the mind. The author explores the vocabulary used by Anaxagoras to articulate his doctrine and how it uses oppositions such as one and multiple, similar and different, light and dark, hot and cold, dry and wet to categorize things. The author also discusses Anaxagoras' use of the concept of infinity in relation to both numbers and spatial dimensions. The text also highlights the attributes of the mind, such as its spatial greatness, lightness, and purity, which allow for quick movement and perception. The author concludes that Anaxagoras' conception of the mind is not divine, but rather characterized by its separation from everything else. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1379","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1379,"authors_free":[{"id":2123,"entry_id":1379,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":295,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ramnoux, Cl\u00e9mence","free_first_name":"Cl\u00e9mence","free_last_name":"Ramnoux","norm_person":{"id":295,"first_name":"Cl\u00e9mence","last_name":"Ramnoux","full_name":"Ramnoux, Cl\u00e9mence","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1219538949","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La R\u00e9cup\u00e9ration d'Anaxagore II","main_title":{"title":"La R\u00e9cup\u00e9ration d'Anaxagore II"},"abstract":"The text discusses the concept of the mind and plurality of worlds in Anaxagoras' philosophy. It focuses on a fragment that is the longest and most extensive in relation to the mind. The author explores the vocabulary used by Anaxagoras to articulate his doctrine and how it uses oppositions such as one and multiple, similar and different, light and dark, hot and cold, dry and wet to categorize things. The author also discusses Anaxagoras' use of the concept of infinity in relation to both numbers and spatial dimensions. The text also highlights the attributes of the mind, such as its spatial greatness, lightness, and purity, which allow for quick movement and perception. The author concludes that Anaxagoras' conception of the mind is not divine, but rather characterized by its separation from everything else. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5IeMTnUXyCXR7VK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":295,"full_name":"Ramnoux, Cl\u00e9mence","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1379,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archives de Philosophie","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"279-297"}},"sort":["La R\u00e9cup\u00e9ration d'Anaxagore II"]}

La critique d’authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d’Aristote, 1974
By: Moraux, Paul, Akurgal, Ekrem (Ed.), Alkım, Uluğ Bahadır (Ed.), Mansel, Arif Müfid (Ed.)
Title La critique d’authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d’Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1974
Published in Mansel’e Armağan. Mélanges Mansel, vol. I
Pages 265-288
Categories no categories
Author(s) Moraux, Paul
Editor(s) Akurgal, Ekrem , Alkım, Uluğ Bahadır , Mansel, Arif Müfid
Translator(s)
Tout comme l’archéologie, la numismatique ou l’épigraphie, l’histoire littéraire est parfois amenée à se demander si les matériaux sur lesquels elle travaille sont bien authentiques. Dans la transmission des textes antiques, en effet, les erreurs fortuites d’attribution devaient se produire plus aisément que de nos jours. Par ailleurs, la notion de propriété littéraire était assez flottante ; un auteur plus récent ne se faisait aucun scrupule à reproduire, parfois littéralement, ce qu’un auteur plus ancien avait écrit sur le même sujet. Enfin, pour les raisons les plus diverses, il y a eu parfois fraude délibérée, le faussaire lançant sous un autre nom, souvent un nom illustre, un ouvrage de son cru.

Il est remarquable que, dans les derniers siècles de l’Antiquité grecque, les commentateurs d’Aristote se soient posé la question de savoir si tel ou tel écrit dont ils avaient à s’occuper était bien l’œuvre d’Aristote. Divers témoignages nous apprennent même que le problème de l’authenticité était l’un de ceux que le commentateur devait aborder dans son introduction, avant de s’attaquer à l’analyse et à l’interprétation du texte proprement dit. On se rappellera que dans une sorte d’introduction générale à la lecture d’Aristote, Ammonius et plusieurs autres commentateurs issus de son école s’arrêtaient aux dix questions suivantes :

    D’où les diverses écoles philosophiques tirent-elles leur nom ?
    Comment faut-il classer les ouvrages d’Aristote ?
    Par quelle discipline doit-on commencer l’étude de la philosophie aristotélicienne ?
    Quel est le but de cette philosophie ?
    Par quels moyens peut-on arriver à ce but ?
    Quels sont les caractères de l’exposé ou du style d’Aristote ?
    Comment justifier l’obscurité d’Aristote ?
    Quelles sont les qualités requises de l’interprète d’Aristote ?
    Quelles sont les qualités requises de l’étudiant qui aborde la philosophie d’Aristote ?
    Quelles questions convient-il d’examiner avant d’étudier chaque traité en particulier ?

Nous n’avons pas à nous étendre ici sur le problème, assez controversé, de l’origine de ce schéma. Disons simplement que, même si sa forme stéréotypée est assez récente, certains de ses éléments sont à coup sûr bien antérieurs à Ammonius, chez qui le schéma apparaît pour la première fois. C’est le dixième point qui doit retenir ici notre attention. De l’avis des commentateurs, il convient, en effet, avant d’expliquer chaque traité, de répondre dans l’introduction aux six questions suivantes :

    Quel est le but du traité en question ?
    Quelle est son utilité ?
    Quelle est sa place dans l’œuvre d’Aristote ?
    Comment expliquer son titre ?
    Le traité est-il authentique ?
    Quelles en sont les grandes divisions ?

Bien sûr, toutes ces questions ne se posent pas dans tous les cas avec la même acuité : il peut arriver, par exemple, que l’utilité de l’ouvrage soit évidente, ou que son titre soit clair, ou encore que son authenticité saute aux yeux et n’ait jamais été contestée ; alors, le commentateur n’aura pas à s’étendre sur ces questions. Quoi qu’il en soit, il est intéressant de noter que le problème de l’authenticité faisait partie des sujets habituellement abordés par les commentateurs dans leurs introductions aux divers ouvrages d’Aristote.

Nous nous proposons d’examiner, dans les pages qui suivent, les quelques traces de cette critique d’authenticité qui ont survécu dans les commentaires arrivés jusqu’à nous. Plusieurs commentateurs néoplatoniciens indiquent pour quelles raisons et à la suite de quelles circonstances il a pu se faire que l’on attribue au Stagirite des ouvrages n’émanant pas de lui. En gros, ils citent les motifs suivants :

    Certains rois payaient bien les textes qu’ils acquéraient pour les bibliothèques qu’ils avaient créées ; cela ne pouvait qu’inciter les faussaires au travail.
    Par ailleurs, la similitude de certains noms d’auteurs ou de certains titres a pu provoquer des confusions ou des erreurs d’attribution.
    Enfin, partant de bonnes intentions, certains disciples ont fait à leur maître l’honneur de lui attribuer leurs propres productions.

Ces indications des commentateurs sur les causes des attributions erronées viennent de faire l’objet d’une bonne étude ; nous n’y reviendrons donc pas. En revanche, nous croyons utile d’examiner plus en détail les déclarations des commentateurs relatives à l’authenticité de certains traités du corpus aristotelicum. Cela nous permettra de voir quels arguments étaient utilisés pour établir ou contester l’authenticité d’un ouvrage, et aussi de mesurer la valeur des jugements portés dans les différents cas.

Les traités ou parties de traités sur lesquels nous possédons, à cet égard, des renseignements concrets sont :

    les Catégories,
    les Postprédicaments (chapitres 10-15 des Catégories),
    le De interpretatione,
    les Analytiques,
    la Physique,
    les Météorologiques,
    et les deux premiers livres de la Métaphysique. [introduction p. 265-267]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"956","_score":null,"_source":{"id":956,"authors_free":[{"id":1434,"entry_id":956,"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}},{"id":2111,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":262,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","free_first_name":"Ekrem","free_last_name":"Akurgal","norm_person":{"id":262,"first_name":"Ekrem","last_name":"Akurgal","full_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118859358","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2112,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":261,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","free_first_name":"Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","free_last_name":"Alk\u0131m","norm_person":{"id":261,"first_name":"Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","last_name":"Alk\u0131m","full_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118859137","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2410,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":260,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","free_first_name":"Arif M\u00fcfid","free_last_name":"Mansel","norm_person":{"id":260,"first_name":"Arif M\u00fcfid","last_name":"Mansel","full_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119020068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La critique d\u2019authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"La critique d\u2019authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Tout comme l\u2019arch\u00e9ologie, la numismatique ou l\u2019\u00e9pigraphie, l\u2019histoire litt\u00e9raire est parfois amen\u00e9e \u00e0 se demander si les mat\u00e9riaux sur lesquels elle travaille sont bien authentiques. Dans la transmission des textes antiques, en effet, les erreurs fortuites d\u2019attribution devaient se produire plus ais\u00e9ment que de nos jours. Par ailleurs, la notion de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 litt\u00e9raire \u00e9tait assez flottante\u202f; un auteur plus r\u00e9cent ne se faisait aucun scrupule \u00e0 reproduire, parfois litt\u00e9ralement, ce qu\u2019un auteur plus ancien avait \u00e9crit sur le m\u00eame sujet. Enfin, pour les raisons les plus diverses, il y a eu parfois fraude d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9e, le faussaire lan\u00e7ant sous un autre nom, souvent un nom illustre, un ouvrage de son cru.\r\n\r\nIl est remarquable que, dans les derniers si\u00e8cles de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 grecque, les commentateurs d\u2019Aristote se soient pos\u00e9 la question de savoir si tel ou tel \u00e9crit dont ils avaient \u00e0 s\u2019occuper \u00e9tait bien l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote. Divers t\u00e9moignages nous apprennent m\u00eame que le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 \u00e9tait l\u2019un de ceux que le commentateur devait aborder dans son introduction, avant de s\u2019attaquer \u00e0 l\u2019analyse et \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du texte proprement dit. On se rappellera que dans une sorte d\u2019introduction g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 la lecture d\u2019Aristote, Ammonius et plusieurs autres commentateurs issus de son \u00e9cole s\u2019arr\u00eataient aux dix questions suivantes :\r\n\r\n D\u2019o\u00f9 les diverses \u00e9coles philosophiques tirent-elles leur nom ?\r\n Comment faut-il classer les ouvrages d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Par quelle discipline doit-on commencer l\u2019\u00e9tude de la philosophie aristot\u00e9licienne ?\r\n Quel est le but de cette philosophie ?\r\n Par quels moyens peut-on arriver \u00e0 ce but ?\r\n Quels sont les caract\u00e8res de l\u2019expos\u00e9 ou du style d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Comment justifier l\u2019obscurit\u00e9 d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Quelles sont les qualit\u00e9s requises de l\u2019interpr\u00e8te d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Quelles sont les qualit\u00e9s requises de l\u2019\u00e9tudiant qui aborde la philosophie d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Quelles questions convient-il d\u2019examiner avant d\u2019\u00e9tudier chaque trait\u00e9 en particulier ?\r\n\r\nNous n\u2019avons pas \u00e0 nous \u00e9tendre ici sur le probl\u00e8me, assez controvers\u00e9, de l\u2019origine de ce sch\u00e9ma. Disons simplement que, m\u00eame si sa forme st\u00e9r\u00e9otyp\u00e9e est assez r\u00e9cente, certains de ses \u00e9l\u00e9ments sont \u00e0 coup s\u00fbr bien ant\u00e9rieurs \u00e0 Ammonius, chez qui le sch\u00e9ma appara\u00eet pour la premi\u00e8re fois. C\u2019est le dixi\u00e8me point qui doit retenir ici notre attention. De l\u2019avis des commentateurs, il convient, en effet, avant d\u2019expliquer chaque trait\u00e9, de r\u00e9pondre dans l\u2019introduction aux six questions suivantes :\r\n\r\n Quel est le but du trait\u00e9 en question ?\r\n Quelle est son utilit\u00e9 ?\r\n Quelle est sa place dans l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Comment expliquer son titre ?\r\n Le trait\u00e9 est-il authentique ?\r\n Quelles en sont les grandes divisions ?\r\n\r\nBien s\u00fbr, toutes ces questions ne se posent pas dans tous les cas avec la m\u00eame acuit\u00e9\u202f: il peut arriver, par exemple, que l\u2019utilit\u00e9 de l\u2019ouvrage soit \u00e9vidente, ou que son titre soit clair, ou encore que son authenticit\u00e9 saute aux yeux et n\u2019ait jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 contest\u00e9e\u202f; alors, le commentateur n\u2019aura pas \u00e0 s\u2019\u00e9tendre sur ces questions. Quoi qu\u2019il en soit, il est int\u00e9ressant de noter que le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 faisait partie des sujets habituellement abord\u00e9s par les commentateurs dans leurs introductions aux divers ouvrages d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nNous nous proposons d\u2019examiner, dans les pages qui suivent, les quelques traces de cette critique d\u2019authenticit\u00e9 qui ont surv\u00e9cu dans les commentaires arriv\u00e9s jusqu\u2019\u00e0 nous. Plusieurs commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens indiquent pour quelles raisons et \u00e0 la suite de quelles circonstances il a pu se faire que l\u2019on attribue au Stagirite des ouvrages n\u2019\u00e9manant pas de lui. En gros, ils citent les motifs suivants :\r\n\r\n Certains rois payaient bien les textes qu\u2019ils acqu\u00e9raient pour les biblioth\u00e8ques qu\u2019ils avaient cr\u00e9\u00e9es\u202f; cela ne pouvait qu\u2019inciter les faussaires au travail.\r\n Par ailleurs, la similitude de certains noms d\u2019auteurs ou de certains titres a pu provoquer des confusions ou des erreurs d\u2019attribution.\r\n Enfin, partant de bonnes intentions, certains disciples ont fait \u00e0 leur ma\u00eetre l\u2019honneur de lui attribuer leurs propres productions.\r\n\r\nCes indications des commentateurs sur les causes des attributions erron\u00e9es viennent de faire l\u2019objet d\u2019une bonne \u00e9tude\u202f; nous n\u2019y reviendrons donc pas. En revanche, nous croyons utile d\u2019examiner plus en d\u00e9tail les d\u00e9clarations des commentateurs relatives \u00e0 l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 de certains trait\u00e9s du corpus aristotelicum. Cela nous permettra de voir quels arguments \u00e9taient utilis\u00e9s pour \u00e9tablir ou contester l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 d\u2019un ouvrage, et aussi de mesurer la valeur des jugements port\u00e9s dans les diff\u00e9rents cas.\r\n\r\nLes trait\u00e9s ou parties de trait\u00e9s sur lesquels nous poss\u00e9dons, \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard, des renseignements concrets sont :\r\n\r\n les Cat\u00e9gories,\r\n les Postpr\u00e9dicaments (chapitres 10-15 des Cat\u00e9gories),\r\n le De interpretatione,\r\n les Analytiques,\r\n la Physique,\r\n les M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques,\r\n et les deux premiers livres de la M\u00e9taphysique. [introduction p. 265-267]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0K9jPcuuBUt3j54","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":262,"full_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":261,"full_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":260,"full_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":956,"section_of":296,"pages":"265-288","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":296,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Mansel\u2019e Arma\u011fan. M\u00e9langes Mansel, vol. I","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Mansel1974","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ySvGVCjObmF3lEv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":296,"pubplace":"Ankara","publisher":"T\u00fcrk Tarih Kurumu Bas\u0131mevi","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La critique d\u2019authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote"]}

La division néoplatonicienne des écrits d'Aristote, 1987
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title La division néoplatonicienne des écrits d'Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Pages 249-285
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Nous  pouvons  donc résumer en quelques  mots  le  résultat de  nos recherches.  La  division  des  écrits  d’Aristote,  telle  quelle  est  présen­tée dans les commentaires néoplatoniciens, est, prise dans son ensem­ble,  un  pur  produit  de  la  philosophie  néoplatonicienne,  produit  qui intègre  néanmoins  quelques  éléments  qui  remontent  à  une  époque antérieure à  cette philosophie.  Ce  qui me  paraît être typiquement et exclusivement  néoplatonicien,  c’est  la  division  des  écrits  aristotéli­ciens  en  écrits  particuliers,  intermédiaires  et  généraux.  D’abord,  la 
place des Lettres au  début de la liste est une particularité que la divi­sion  néoplatonicienne  ne  partage,  à  ma  connaissance,  avec  aucune 
autre  liste  non  seulement  d’écrits  aristotéliciens,  mais  aussi  d’écrits de  n’importe  quel  auteur.  Ensuite,  la catégorie  des  écrits  intermédi­aires ne peut avoir de sens qu’à l’intérieur du système néoplatonicien, car elle sert surtout à se débarrasser d’un certain nombre d’écrits bio­
logiques  d’Aristote,  parce  que  ceux-ci  n’avaient pas  de place  dans  le cursus philosophique néoplatonicien.  Pour les péripatéticiens au con­
traire,  ces  écrits  rentraient  tout  simplement  dans  la  partie  physique de  la philosophie, comme  Simplicius nous l’apprend  au début de son commentaire sur la Physique128, où  il reproduit le classement péripatéticien  des  écrits  physiques  d’Aristote.  Pour  les  péripatéticiens, 
comme  d’ailleurs  pour  n’importe  quel  auteur  de  Pinax,  le  fait  de séparer les écrits  d’Aristote se  rapportant  aux choses de  la nature en 
deux  catégories,  l’une  qui  comprendrait  des  écrits  «intermédiaires», l’autre qui  rassemblerait les écrits physiques  et correspondrait à  une 
subdivision  des  écrits  généraux,  ne  pouvait  avoir  aucun  sens.  Cette séparation  n’était  possible  que  dans  la  perspective  de  l’ontologie 
néoplatonicienne.  Il  y a  d’ailleurs confusion  des  deux systèmes  dans la division  de  David.  Il respecte d’abord  la division néoplatonicienne 
en  écrits  particuliers,  intermédiaires  et  généraux  en  donnant  des exemples  adéquats  pour  chaque  rubrique,  mais  quand  il  arrive  à  la 
rubrique  physique  des  écrits  théorétiques,  il  suit,  en  énumérant  des exemples,  la  liste  péripatéticienne  ou  tout  simplement  le  pinax  des écrits  d’Aristote  qui  se  trouvait  à  la suite  de  sa  biographie.  Il  répète donc  quelques  titres  qu’il  avait  auparavant  classés  dans  les  écrits 
intermédiaires  et ajoute bon  nombre de traités  qui, selon  le point de vue  néoplatonicien,  n’ont  rien  à  voir avec la philosophie. [conclusion, p. 284-285]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"697","_score":null,"_source":{"id":697,"authors_free":[{"id":1036,"entry_id":697,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1037,"entry_id":697,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La division n\u00e9oplatonicienne des \u00e9crits d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"La division n\u00e9oplatonicienne des \u00e9crits d'Aristote"},"abstract":"Nous pouvons donc r\u00e9sumer en quelques mots le r\u00e9sultat de nos recherches. La division des \u00e9crits d\u2019Aristote, telle quelle est pr\u00e9sen\u00adt\u00e9e dans les commentaires n\u00e9oplatoniciens, est, prise dans son ensem\u00adble, un pur produit de la philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne, produit qui int\u00e8gre n\u00e9anmoins quelques \u00e9l\u00e9ments qui remontent \u00e0 une \u00e9poque ant\u00e9rieure \u00e0 cette philosophie. Ce qui me para\u00eet \u00eatre typiquement et exclusivement n\u00e9oplatonicien, c\u2019est la division des \u00e9crits aristot\u00e9li\u00adciens en \u00e9crits particuliers, interm\u00e9diaires et g\u00e9n\u00e9raux. D\u2019abord, la \r\nplace des Lettres au d\u00e9but de la liste est une particularit\u00e9 que la divi\u00adsion n\u00e9oplatonicienne ne partage, \u00e0 ma connaissance, avec aucune \r\nautre liste non seulement d\u2019\u00e9crits aristot\u00e9liciens, mais aussi d\u2019\u00e9crits de n\u2019importe quel auteur. Ensuite, la cat\u00e9gorie des \u00e9crits interm\u00e9di\u00adaires ne peut avoir de sens qu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur du syst\u00e8me n\u00e9oplatonicien, car elle sert surtout \u00e0 se d\u00e9barrasser d\u2019un certain nombre d\u2019\u00e9crits bio\u00ad\r\nlogiques d\u2019Aristote, parce que ceux-ci n\u2019avaient pas de place dans le cursus philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicien. Pour les p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens au con\u00ad\r\ntraire, ces \u00e9crits rentraient tout simplement dans la partie physique de la philosophie, comme Simplicius nous l\u2019apprend au d\u00e9but de son commentaire sur la Physique128, o\u00f9 il reproduit le classement p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien des \u00e9crits physiques d\u2019Aristote. Pour les p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, \r\ncomme d\u2019ailleurs pour n\u2019importe quel auteur de Pinax, le fait de s\u00e9parer les \u00e9crits d\u2019Aristote se rapportant aux choses de la nature en \r\ndeux cat\u00e9gories, l\u2019une qui comprendrait des \u00e9crits \u00abinterm\u00e9diaires\u00bb, l\u2019autre qui rassemblerait les \u00e9crits physiques et correspondrait \u00e0 une \r\nsubdivision des \u00e9crits g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, ne pouvait avoir aucun sens. Cette s\u00e9paration n\u2019\u00e9tait possible que dans la perspective de l\u2019ontologie \r\nn\u00e9oplatonicienne. Il y a d\u2019ailleurs confusion des deux syst\u00e8mes dans la division de David. Il respecte d\u2019abord la division n\u00e9oplatonicienne \r\nen \u00e9crits particuliers, interm\u00e9diaires et g\u00e9n\u00e9raux en donnant des exemples ad\u00e9quats pour chaque rubrique, mais quand il arrive \u00e0 la \r\nrubrique physique des \u00e9crits th\u00e9or\u00e9tiques, il suit, en \u00e9num\u00e9rant des exemples, la liste p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne ou tout simplement le pinax des \u00e9crits d\u2019Aristote qui se trouvait \u00e0 la suite de sa biographie. Il r\u00e9p\u00e8te donc quelques titres qu\u2019il avait auparavant class\u00e9s dans les \u00e9crits \r\ninterm\u00e9diaires et ajoute bon nombre de trait\u00e9s qui, selon le point de vue n\u00e9oplatonicien, n\u2019ont rien \u00e0 voir avec la philosophie. [conclusion, p. 284-285]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GosX6JCGE0N12qC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":697,"section_of":189,"pages":"249-285","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La division n\u00e9oplatonicienne des \u00e9crits d'Aristote"]}

La fin de l'Acádemie, 1971
By: Cameron, Alan, Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)
Avec la mort de Proclus en 485, l’Académie tomba dans un déclin rapide. Trois générations durant, les meilleurs philosophes avaient été formés à Athènes par Plutarque, Syrianus et Proclus. Au contraire, les meilleurs philosophes de la génération suivante, Asclépius, Damascius, Eutocius, Olympiodore, Philopon et Simplicius, furent tous élèves d’Ammonius à Alexandrie. Ammonius lui-même avait été élève de Proclus.

Nous connaissons les noms de tous les successeurs de Proclus à Athènes, mais ils ne sont guère pour nous que des noms. Même Damascius, qui était scolarque en l’année fatidique de 529, admet que la philosophie à Athènes n’était jamais tombée aussi bas que juste avant son accession à la chaire.

Tout cela est hors de conteste. Pourtant, les savants modernes ont généralement considéré que ce déclin a continué sans interruption jusqu’en 529 et qu’en 529, lorsque Justinien a publié son illustre édit fermant l’Académie, elle était déjà sur son lit de mort. Autrement dit, ils considèrent que l’acte de Justinien fut plutôt de l’euthanasie qu’un assassinat.

La dernière étude sur la fermeture de l’Académie admet sans discussion qu’en 529, la philosophie païenne d’Athènes avait déjà succombé sous les coups de la philosophie christianisée d’Alexandrie et de Gaza, que les étudiants, sauvés des griffes de l’impie Damascius, pouvaient désormais être guidés sur les chemins de la vérité par des chrétiens comme Philopon et Procope de Gaza. Hélas ! Cette image édifiante n’a rien à voir avec l’histoire.

Il est douteux qu’il y ait jamais eu une école chrétienne de philosophie à Gaza. Énée et Procope étaient tous deux professeurs de rhétorique, et leurs plus fameux disciples furent aussi des rhéteurs (Épiphanius, Choricius). En tous cas, en 529, tous deux étaient morts.

En ce qui concerne Alexandrie, contrairement à une opinion largement répandue, Philopon ne succéda pas à la chaire d’Ammonius. Pour des raisons que nous ne connaissons pas, il est resté, semble-t-il, toute sa vie grammaticus, professeur de littérature. Et vers la fin de sa vie, il se tourna de plus en plus de la philosophie vers la théologie — et vers l’hérésie.

En outre, l’influence de la tradition scolaire était si forte, même dans le cas de philosophes chrétiens, que les écrits de Philopon ont exercé une influence étonnamment faible sur l’enseignement à Alexandrie. Olympiodore, qui enseignait encore à Alexandrie dans les années 560, était en effet païen, et ses successeurs, Élie, David, Étienne, bien que chrétiens, continuèrent à enseigner des doctrines comme l’éternité du monde et la divinité des corps célestes, qui avaient été déjà depuis longtemps réfutées par Philopon.

Nous ne découvrons certainement pas ce qui est quelquefois évoqué en termes grandiloquents comme une synthèse de l’aristotélisme et du christianisme.

Dès lors, il ne saurait être question de la vitalité supérieure d’une philosophie chrétienne écrasant les faibles survivants du paganisme sur leur propre terrain. De fait, si l’on compare le travail qui se fait à Athènes et à Alexandrie dans la première moitié du VIe siècle — en négligeant la production des dernières années de Philopon, comme étrangère à la tradition universitaire proprement dite —, il est clair que Damascius et Simplicius surpassent de beaucoup leurs rivaux alexandrins.

Quant à la réputation de Damascius comme professeur (et la compétence scientifique a autant d’importance que l’habileté pédagogique), elle est établie par la liste de ses élèves en 529, qui comprenait des philosophes originaires de Cilicie, de Phrygie, de Lydie, de Phénicie et de Gaza : un véritable recrutement international.

Assez étrangement, on a voulu tirer argument du caractère international de l’école de Damascius pour prouver la décadence de l’Académie. Athènes elle-même, dit-on, ne pouvait plus produire des Athéniens pour cultiver l’héritage de Platon. C’est ignorer le caractère international de la vie universitaire à la fin de l’Antiquité, caractère bien mis en évidence par la Vie d’Isidore écrite par Damascius et par Eunape dans les Vies des sophistes.

En cet âge d’or de la rhétorique que fut le IVe siècle, à Athènes, les grands noms étaient Julien de Cappadoce, Himérius de Bithynie, Prohairesius d’Arménie. À peu près aucun Athénien parmi eux. Proclus lui-même était lycien, Syrianus, alexandrin. C’est plutôt un signe de la santé de ses institutions qu’Athènes pût encore attirer des étrangers de valeur !

Je voudrais suggérer, en effet, que bien loin que ce fût l’Académie qui fût sur son lit de mort en 529, c’était l’école d’Alexandrie qui était en déclin après la mort d’Ammonius, alors que l’Académie reprenait vie.

Les successeurs d’Ammonius à Alexandrie furent Eutocius le mathématicien et Olympiodore, philosophes, ni l’un ni l’autre de grande envergure. Tandis que vers 529, l’énergique et habile Damascius avait repris en main l’Académie et s’était entouré d’une équipe de disciples dévoués — dévoués, car nous savons qu’ils le suivirent en Perse après la fermeture de l’Académie.

Une illustration frappante de ce changement de relation entre Athènes et Alexandrie est le fait que, alors que dans ses premiers commentaires Olympiodore dépendait essentiellement d’Ammonius, dans ses dernières œuvres, il s’appuie de plus en plus sur Damascius. Nous saisissons, là encore, Alexandrie se tournant vers Athènes.

Il se peut que Justinien n’ait pas fermé l’Académie par mépris, parce qu’elle était moribonde, mais — et c’est une raison plus naturelle et plus plausible — par crainte, parce qu’elle reprenait vie. [introduction p. 281-283]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1258","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1258,"authors_free":[{"id":1837,"entry_id":1258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2334,"entry_id":1258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":23,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime","free_first_name":"Pierre-Maxime","free_last_name":"Schuhl","norm_person":{"id":23,"first_name":"Pierre-Maxime","last_name":"Schuhl","full_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117559718X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2335,"entry_id":1258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La fin de l'Ac\u00e1demie","main_title":{"title":"La fin de l'Ac\u00e1demie"},"abstract":"Avec la mort de Proclus en 485, l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie tomba dans un d\u00e9clin rapide. Trois g\u00e9n\u00e9rations durant, les meilleurs philosophes avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 form\u00e9s \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes par Plutarque, Syrianus et Proclus. Au contraire, les meilleurs philosophes de la g\u00e9n\u00e9ration suivante, Ascl\u00e9pius, Damascius, Eutocius, Olympiodore, Philopon et Simplicius, furent tous \u00e9l\u00e8ves d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie. Ammonius lui-m\u00eame avait \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9l\u00e8ve de Proclus.\r\n\r\nNous connaissons les noms de tous les successeurs de Proclus \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes, mais ils ne sont gu\u00e8re pour nous que des noms. M\u00eame Damascius, qui \u00e9tait scolarque en l\u2019ann\u00e9e fatidique de 529, admet que la philosophie \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes n\u2019\u00e9tait jamais tomb\u00e9e aussi bas que juste avant son accession \u00e0 la chaire.\r\n\r\nTout cela est hors de conteste. Pourtant, les savants modernes ont g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que ce d\u00e9clin a continu\u00e9 sans interruption jusqu\u2019en 529 et qu\u2019en 529, lorsque Justinien a publi\u00e9 son illustre \u00e9dit fermant l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie, elle \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 sur son lit de mort. Autrement dit, ils consid\u00e8rent que l\u2019acte de Justinien fut plut\u00f4t de l\u2019euthanasie qu\u2019un assassinat.\r\n\r\nLa derni\u00e8re \u00e9tude sur la fermeture de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie admet sans discussion qu\u2019en 529, la philosophie pa\u00efenne d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 succomb\u00e9 sous les coups de la philosophie christianis\u00e9e d\u2019Alexandrie et de Gaza, que les \u00e9tudiants, sauv\u00e9s des griffes de l\u2019impie Damascius, pouvaient d\u00e9sormais \u00eatre guid\u00e9s sur les chemins de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 par des chr\u00e9tiens comme Philopon et Procope de Gaza. H\u00e9las ! Cette image \u00e9difiante n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec l\u2019histoire.\r\n\r\nIl est douteux qu\u2019il y ait jamais eu une \u00e9cole chr\u00e9tienne de philosophie \u00e0 Gaza. \u00c9n\u00e9e et Procope \u00e9taient tous deux professeurs de rh\u00e9torique, et leurs plus fameux disciples furent aussi des rh\u00e9teurs (\u00c9piphanius, Choricius). En tous cas, en 529, tous deux \u00e9taient morts.\r\n\r\nEn ce qui concerne Alexandrie, contrairement \u00e0 une opinion largement r\u00e9pandue, Philopon ne succ\u00e9da pas \u00e0 la chaire d\u2019Ammonius. Pour des raisons que nous ne connaissons pas, il est rest\u00e9, semble-t-il, toute sa vie grammaticus, professeur de litt\u00e9rature. Et vers la fin de sa vie, il se tourna de plus en plus de la philosophie vers la th\u00e9ologie \u2014 et vers l\u2019h\u00e9r\u00e9sie.\r\n\r\nEn outre, l\u2019influence de la tradition scolaire \u00e9tait si forte, m\u00eame dans le cas de philosophes chr\u00e9tiens, que les \u00e9crits de Philopon ont exerc\u00e9 une influence \u00e9tonnamment faible sur l\u2019enseignement \u00e0 Alexandrie. Olympiodore, qui enseignait encore \u00e0 Alexandrie dans les ann\u00e9es 560, \u00e9tait en effet pa\u00efen, et ses successeurs, \u00c9lie, David, \u00c9tienne, bien que chr\u00e9tiens, continu\u00e8rent \u00e0 enseigner des doctrines comme l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du monde et la divinit\u00e9 des corps c\u00e9lestes, qui avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9j\u00e0 depuis longtemps r\u00e9fut\u00e9es par Philopon.\r\n\r\nNous ne d\u00e9couvrons certainement pas ce qui est quelquefois \u00e9voqu\u00e9 en termes grandiloquents comme une synth\u00e8se de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme et du christianisme.\r\n\r\nD\u00e8s lors, il ne saurait \u00eatre question de la vitalit\u00e9 sup\u00e9rieure d\u2019une philosophie chr\u00e9tienne \u00e9crasant les faibles survivants du paganisme sur leur propre terrain. De fait, si l\u2019on compare le travail qui se fait \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes et \u00e0 Alexandrie dans la premi\u00e8re moiti\u00e9 du VIe si\u00e8cle \u2014 en n\u00e9gligeant la production des derni\u00e8res ann\u00e9es de Philopon, comme \u00e9trang\u00e8re \u00e0 la tradition universitaire proprement dite \u2014, il est clair que Damascius et Simplicius surpassent de beaucoup leurs rivaux alexandrins.\r\n\r\nQuant \u00e0 la r\u00e9putation de Damascius comme professeur (et la comp\u00e9tence scientifique a autant d\u2019importance que l\u2019habilet\u00e9 p\u00e9dagogique), elle est \u00e9tablie par la liste de ses \u00e9l\u00e8ves en 529, qui comprenait des philosophes originaires de Cilicie, de Phrygie, de Lydie, de Ph\u00e9nicie et de Gaza : un v\u00e9ritable recrutement international.\r\n\r\nAssez \u00e9trangement, on a voulu tirer argument du caract\u00e8re international de l\u2019\u00e9cole de Damascius pour prouver la d\u00e9cadence de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie. Ath\u00e8nes elle-m\u00eame, dit-on, ne pouvait plus produire des Ath\u00e9niens pour cultiver l\u2019h\u00e9ritage de Platon. C\u2019est ignorer le caract\u00e8re international de la vie universitaire \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, caract\u00e8re bien mis en \u00e9vidence par la Vie d\u2019Isidore \u00e9crite par Damascius et par Eunape dans les Vies des sophistes.\r\n\r\nEn cet \u00e2ge d\u2019or de la rh\u00e9torique que fut le IVe si\u00e8cle, \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes, les grands noms \u00e9taient Julien de Cappadoce, Him\u00e9rius de Bithynie, Prohairesius d\u2019Arm\u00e9nie. \u00c0 peu pr\u00e8s aucun Ath\u00e9nien parmi eux. Proclus lui-m\u00eame \u00e9tait lycien, Syrianus, alexandrin. C\u2019est plut\u00f4t un signe de la sant\u00e9 de ses institutions qu\u2019Ath\u00e8nes p\u00fbt encore attirer des \u00e9trangers de valeur !\r\n\r\nJe voudrais sugg\u00e9rer, en effet, que bien loin que ce f\u00fbt l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie qui f\u00fbt sur son lit de mort en 529, c\u2019\u00e9tait l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Alexandrie qui \u00e9tait en d\u00e9clin apr\u00e8s la mort d\u2019Ammonius, alors que l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie reprenait vie.\r\n\r\nLes successeurs d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie furent Eutocius le math\u00e9maticien et Olympiodore, philosophes, ni l\u2019un ni l\u2019autre de grande envergure. Tandis que vers 529, l\u2019\u00e9nergique et habile Damascius avait repris en main l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie et s\u2019\u00e9tait entour\u00e9 d\u2019une \u00e9quipe de disciples d\u00e9vou\u00e9s \u2014 d\u00e9vou\u00e9s, car nous savons qu\u2019ils le suivirent en Perse apr\u00e8s la fermeture de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie.\r\n\r\nUne illustration frappante de ce changement de relation entre Ath\u00e8nes et Alexandrie est le fait que, alors que dans ses premiers commentaires Olympiodore d\u00e9pendait essentiellement d\u2019Ammonius, dans ses derni\u00e8res \u0153uvres, il s\u2019appuie de plus en plus sur Damascius. Nous saisissons, l\u00e0 encore, Alexandrie se tournant vers Ath\u00e8nes.\r\n\r\nIl se peut que Justinien n\u2019ait pas ferm\u00e9 l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie par m\u00e9pris, parce qu\u2019elle \u00e9tait moribonde, mais \u2014 et c\u2019est une raison plus naturelle et plus plausible \u2014 par crainte, parce qu\u2019elle reprenait vie. [introduction p. 281-283]","btype":2,"date":"1971","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WEx2IgLff0lYEzl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":20,"full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":23,"full_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1258,"section_of":1257,"pages":"281-290","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1257,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Le N\u00e9oplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le N\u00e9oplatonisme organis\u00e9 dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique \u00e0 Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Schuhl_Hadot1971","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1971","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The book is a valuable resource for scholars and students of Neoplatonism, providing a comprehensive overview of the history and development of this important philosophical tradition. It is divided into three main sections. The first section focuses on the historical development of Neoplatonism, tracing its origins in the philosophy of Plato and its development through the works of Plotinus, Proclus, and other Neoplatonic thinkers. The second section explores the relationship between Neoplatonism and other philosophical traditions, such as Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism. The third section examines the influence of Neoplatonism on literature and Christianity. [introduction]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3Ys5KdoaAlOHE6L","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1257,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La fin de l'Ac\u00e1demie"]}

La relation chez Simplicius, 1987
By: Luna, Concetta, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title La relation chez Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 113-147
Categories no categories
Author(s) Luna, Concetta
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
This text is about Simplicius' doctrine of the relation. Although Simplicius did not dedicate a specific treatise to the relation, his views can be reconstructed from his commentary on Aristotle's Categories and certain passages in his commentary on Physics. Simplicius' approach to the Categories builds upon a rich tradition of commentaries, and he offers both questions and solutions in his own commentary. The author argues that Simplicius' elaboration of the concept of relation is not necessarily original, but his writings present a valuable contribution to the clarification of the concept. The text also discusses other traditions of reflection on the categories, such as those of the Academy and the Stoics. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1116","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1116,"authors_free":[{"id":1685,"entry_id":1116,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":458,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Luna, Concetta","free_first_name":"Concetta","free_last_name":"Luna","norm_person":{"id":458,"first_name":"Concetta","last_name":"Luna","full_name":"Luna, Concetta","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1153489031","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1686,"entry_id":1116,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La relation chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La relation chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"This text is about Simplicius' doctrine of the relation. Although Simplicius did not dedicate a specific treatise to the relation, his views can be reconstructed from his commentary on Aristotle's Categories and certain passages in his commentary on Physics. Simplicius' approach to the Categories builds upon a rich tradition of commentaries, and he offers both questions and solutions in his own commentary. The author argues that Simplicius' elaboration of the concept of relation is not necessarily original, but his writings present a valuable contribution to the clarification of the concept. The text also discusses other traditions of reflection on the categories, such as those of the Academy and the Stoics. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/B73LnGwsUzauanV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":458,"full_name":"Luna, Concetta","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1116,"section_of":171,"pages":"113-147","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La relation chez Simplicius"]}

La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'Épictète du XVe au XVII siècles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth, 1987
By: Hadot, Pierre, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'Épictète du XVe au XVII siècles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 326-367
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Pierre
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
The survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' "Handbook" from the 15th to the 17th centuries can be observed from two perspectives. Firstly, there is a focus on the preservation and dissemination of the text itself through printing and translation. However, this study concentrates on the second aspect, which concerns the philosophical content of the commentary. The examination of its philosophical content has aided in understanding Epictetus' "Handbook," resolving certain philosophical problems, and demonstrating the convergence between Platonism and Christianity.The philosophical importance of Simplicius' commentary is exemplified by the work of various scholars, such as Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, and Cudworth. They draw on Simplicius' ideas to address and resolve philosophical questions. For instance, Cudworth uses Simplicius' assertion that the principle of movement must move itself and be without parts or extension to argue for the existence of a spiritual substance. Cudworth further highlights how Simplicius perfectly expresses the Platonic idea of the soul's self-motion, where it moves not according to bodily or local movements but according to the movements of the soul, such as examination, volition, thought, and opinion. Overall, the survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' "Handbook" throughout this period has not only contributed to a better understanding of the text itself but also enriched philosophical discussions and fostered connections between Platonism and Christianity. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"519","_score":null,"_source":{"id":519,"authors_free":[{"id":724,"entry_id":519,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":725,"entry_id":519,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te du XVe au XVII si\u00e8cles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth","main_title":{"title":"La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te du XVe au XVII si\u00e8cles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth"},"abstract":"The survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' \"Handbook\" from the 15th to the 17th centuries can be observed from two perspectives. Firstly, there is a focus on the preservation and dissemination of the text itself through printing and translation. However, this study concentrates on the second aspect, which concerns the philosophical content of the commentary. The examination of its philosophical content has aided in understanding Epictetus' \"Handbook,\" resolving certain philosophical problems, and demonstrating the convergence between Platonism and Christianity.The philosophical importance of Simplicius' commentary is exemplified by the work of various scholars, such as Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, and Cudworth. They draw on Simplicius' ideas to address and resolve philosophical questions. For instance, Cudworth uses Simplicius' assertion that the principle of movement must move itself and be without parts or extension to argue for the existence of a spiritual substance. Cudworth further highlights how Simplicius perfectly expresses the Platonic idea of the soul's self-motion, where it moves not according to bodily or local movements but according to the movements of the soul, such as examination, volition, thought, and opinion. Overall, the survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' \"Handbook\" throughout this period has not only contributed to a better understanding of the text itself but also enriched philosophical discussions and fostered connections between Platonism and Christianity. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YBJwmhRAfIkqrD5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":519,"section_of":171,"pages":"326-367","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te du XVe au XVII si\u00e8cles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth"]}

La taille et la forme des atomes dans les systèmes de Démocrite et d'Épicure («Préjugé» et «présupposé» en histoire de la philosophie), 1982
By: O'Brien, Denis
Title La taille et la forme des atomes dans les systèmes de Démocrite et d'Épicure («Préjugé» et «présupposé» en histoire de la philosophie)
Type Article
Language French
Date 1982
Journal Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'Étranger
Volume 172
Issue 2
Pages 187-203
Categories no categories
Author(s) O'Brien, Denis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Qu'on n'aille pas en conclure que nous suivons aveuglément tout propos du Stagirite. Une observation permettra d'atténuer la valeur de son témoignage et de nuancer la conclusion à laquelle nous sommes arrivés jusqu'ici.

Selon l'hypothèse élaborée ci-dessus, Démocrite et Épicure ne se seraient pas opposés sur la question de la grandeur des atomes. Pour l'un et l'autre philosophe, la gamme des grandeurs aura été en effet finie. Mais scrutons de plus près les deux thèses concernant la forme des atomes. Épicure précise que les variétés de forme sont, non pas « infinies », mais « insaisissables » (ἀπερίληπτοι). Quant à Démocrite et à Leucippe, Aristote affirme deux fois que les variétés de forme sont « infinies », d'une part en parlant de la multiplicité « infinie » des atomes, d'autre part en opposant la théorie de Leucippe à celle de Platon.

En revanche, lorsqu'il présente le système atomiste dans le fragment Sur Démocrite, les différences de forme sont dites, non plus « infinies », mais « innombrables » (ἀναρίθμητος).

À en juger d'après l'Index de Bonitz, ce dernier terme est un hapax dans l'œuvre d'Aristote. S'ensuit-il qu'il soit, sinon un vocable d'emprunt, du moins un terme transposé, plus proche de l'expression originale de Démocrite ?

Mais qu'est-ce qui sépare alors la doctrine des Abdéritains et celle d'Épicure ? Où passe la distinction entre différences « innombrables » (Démocrite) et différences « insaisissables » (Épicure) ?

Un dernier paradoxe semble poindre : on peut en effet se demander si, en refusant l'hypothèse d'une variété infinie de formes, Épicure ne s'opposait pas à la formulation qu'en avait donnée Aristote, bien plus qu'il ne songeait à rectifier la théorie de Démocrite.

Mais nous effleurons ici un problème nouveau, celui de l'élaboration progressive des notions d'infini et de fini ; impossible de l'approfondir sans balayer les « préjugés » et les « présupposés » qui, sur ce point aussi, nous séparent des notions primitives par une proximité illusoire.

Problème trop vaste pour qu'on puisse l'aborder dans cet article. [conclusion 201-203]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1101","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1101,"authors_free":[{"id":1664,"entry_id":1101,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O'Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O'Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La taille et la forme des atomes dans les syst\u00e8mes de D\u00e9mocrite et d'\u00c9picure (\u00abPr\u00e9jug\u00e9\u00bb et \u00abpr\u00e9suppos\u00e9\u00bb en histoire de la philosophie)","main_title":{"title":"La taille et la forme des atomes dans les syst\u00e8mes de D\u00e9mocrite et d'\u00c9picure (\u00abPr\u00e9jug\u00e9\u00bb et \u00abpr\u00e9suppos\u00e9\u00bb en histoire de la philosophie)"},"abstract":"Qu'on n'aille pas en conclure que nous suivons aveugl\u00e9ment tout propos du Stagirite. Une observation permettra d'att\u00e9nuer la valeur de son t\u00e9moignage et de nuancer la conclusion \u00e0 laquelle nous sommes arriv\u00e9s jusqu'ici.\r\n\r\nSelon l'hypoth\u00e8se \u00e9labor\u00e9e ci-dessus, D\u00e9mocrite et \u00c9picure ne se seraient pas oppos\u00e9s sur la question de la grandeur des atomes. Pour l'un et l'autre philosophe, la gamme des grandeurs aura \u00e9t\u00e9 en effet finie. Mais scrutons de plus pr\u00e8s les deux th\u00e8ses concernant la forme des atomes. \u00c9picure pr\u00e9cise que les vari\u00e9t\u00e9s de forme sont, non pas \u00ab infinies \u00bb, mais \u00ab insaisissables \u00bb (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9). Quant \u00e0 D\u00e9mocrite et \u00e0 Leucippe, Aristote affirme deux fois que les vari\u00e9t\u00e9s de forme sont \u00ab infinies \u00bb, d'une part en parlant de la multiplicit\u00e9 \u00ab infinie \u00bb des atomes, d'autre part en opposant la th\u00e9orie de Leucippe \u00e0 celle de Platon.\r\n\r\nEn revanche, lorsqu'il pr\u00e9sente le syst\u00e8me atomiste dans le fragment Sur D\u00e9mocrite, les diff\u00e9rences de forme sont dites, non plus \u00ab infinies \u00bb, mais \u00ab innombrables \u00bb (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2).\r\n\r\n\u00c0 en juger d'apr\u00e8s l'Index de Bonitz, ce dernier terme est un hapax dans l'\u0153uvre d'Aristote. S'ensuit-il qu'il soit, sinon un vocable d'emprunt, du moins un terme transpos\u00e9, plus proche de l'expression originale de D\u00e9mocrite ?\r\n\r\nMais qu'est-ce qui s\u00e9pare alors la doctrine des Abd\u00e9ritains et celle d'\u00c9picure ? O\u00f9 passe la distinction entre diff\u00e9rences \u00ab innombrables \u00bb (D\u00e9mocrite) et diff\u00e9rences \u00ab insaisissables \u00bb (\u00c9picure) ?\r\n\r\nUn dernier paradoxe semble poindre : on peut en effet se demander si, en refusant l'hypoth\u00e8se d'une vari\u00e9t\u00e9 infinie de formes, \u00c9picure ne s'opposait pas \u00e0 la formulation qu'en avait donn\u00e9e Aristote, bien plus qu'il ne songeait \u00e0 rectifier la th\u00e9orie de D\u00e9mocrite.\r\n\r\nMais nous effleurons ici un probl\u00e8me nouveau, celui de l'\u00e9laboration progressive des notions d'infini et de fini ; impossible de l'approfondir sans balayer les \u00ab pr\u00e9jug\u00e9s \u00bb et les \u00ab pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s \u00bb qui, sur ce point aussi, nous s\u00e9parent des notions primitives par une proximit\u00e9 illusoire.\r\n\r\nProbl\u00e8me trop vaste pour qu'on puisse l'aborder dans cet article. [conclusion 201-203]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AhK7pfqowUhUex4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1101,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'\u00c9tranger","volume":"172","issue":"2","pages":"187-203"}},"sort":["La taille et la forme des atomes dans les syst\u00e8mes de D\u00e9mocrite et d'\u00c9picure (\u00abPr\u00e9jug\u00e9\u00bb et \u00abpr\u00e9suppos\u00e9\u00bb en histoire de la philosophie)"]}

La teoria della relazione nei commentatori neoplatonici delle "Categorie" di Aristotele, 1983
By: Conti, Alessandro D.
Title La teoria della relazione nei commentatori neoplatonici delle "Categorie" di Aristotele
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 1983
Journal Rivista critica di storia della filosofia
Volume 38
Issue 3
Pages 259-283
Categories no categories
Author(s) Conti, Alessandro D.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Uno dei contributi particolari più rilevanti che i commentatori neoplatonici hanno recato allo sviluppo e alla sistemazione della dottrina categoriale aristotelica è senza dubbio quello relativo all'analisi della nozione di πρός τι.

Essi, infatti, nel tentativo di fornire un'interpretazione del settimo capitolo delle Categorie che fosse (i) internamente coerente e (ii) solidale con la lettura generale del trattato, sono giunti a elaborare in forma sufficientemente compiuta un concetto di relazione analogo al moderno concetto di relazione binaria, del tutto assente, invece, negli scritti di Aristotele, che pare conoscere solo un non ben definito concetto di relativo (πρός τι).

In altre parole: mentre lo Stagirita (i) operava con la sola nozione di relativo e (ii) concepiva i relativi — sotto l'influenza di evidenti suggestioni grammaticali — come le entità che corrispondono ai termini non assoluti del linguaggio (cioè non aventi significato se non in riferimento a un altro termine), i neoplatonici, al contrario, saranno in grado (i) di servirsi sia della nozione di relativo che di quella di relazione (σχέσις), e (ii) di concepire, in un certo qual modo, le relazioni come funzioni diadiche (o meglio, come una sorta di corrispettivo ontologico delle nostre funzioni diadiche) e i relativi come gli argomenti che tali funzioni soddisfano.

Le precise scelte interpretative su alcuni problemi cruciali del trattato, e cioè:

    la valenza della tavola categoriale,
    la distinzione delle categorie,
    il tipo d'esistenza degli accidenti

da una parte, e l'accettazione dell'idea, aristotelicamente corretta, che i πρός τι devono essere presi a coppie, dall'altra, sono gli elementi che hanno reso possibile ai neoplatonici la formulazione del concetto di relazione (binaria).

Essi infatti ritenevano:

    che la tavola categoriale avesse una precisa valenza ontologica, ripartendo non solo nomi e concetti, ma anche cose;
    che la distinzione tra le dieci categorie fosse reale e non concettuale;
    che gli accidenti fossero forme inerenti alle sostanze.

In conseguenza dei primi due punti, i neoplatonici erano indotti a difendere l'oggettività, la realtà e l'indipendenza della categoria dei πρός τι e dei suoi appartenenti, e a rifiutare, quindi, qualsiasi tentativo di interpretazione che volesse ridurla, direttamente o indirettamente, alle altre categorie.

D'altra parte, concepire gli accidenti come forme inerenti alle sostanze equivaleva a considerare il rapporto tra ciascun genere degli accidenti e la sostanza alla stregua di quello della qualità, e quindi secondo il modello qualità-cosa qualificata.

Così, nel caso dei πρός τι, i neoplatonici pensavano che l'entità "padre" fosse un'entità composta di una sostanza e di una certa forma accidentale, la paternità, ad essa inerente, non diversamente da come "bianco" è un'entità composta da una sostanza e dalla forma della bianchezza.

Per avere un concetto corretto di relazione bastava, a questo punto, assumere, coerentemente con l'idea che i πρός τι vanno presi a coppie, che la caratteristica peculiare di queste particolari forme accidentali fosse quella di riferirsi e collegare tra loro due entità distinte.

Scrive, ad esempio, Simplicio:

    «È proprio soltanto della relazione il sussistere una in molti enti, cosa che non capita a nessuna delle altre categorie» (Simplicio, In Cat., p. 161, 6-8).

E si legge in Olimpiodoro:

    «Infatti nei relativi una è la relazione, ma distinte le entità che l'accolgono» (Olimpiodoro, In Cat., p. 97, 30-1).

Su queste nuove basi concettuali, i commentatori neoplatonici potranno sviluppare una teoria dei πρός τι sufficientemente omogenea e coerente nelle sue linee più generali, che adopereranno come modello interpretativo della confusa dottrina aristotelica.

In questo modo, essi riusciranno a presentare quest'ultima come un sistema sostanzialmente compiuto e ordinato.

E anzi, i punti e gli elementi incongrui che ancora vi sopravviveranno saranno dovuti più a un evidente desiderio di giustificare e spiegare comunque — per lo meno parzialmente se non in toto — le affermazioni dello Stagirita, che a delle effettive carenze nella teoria da essi elaborata. [introduction p. 259-263]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1275","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1275,"authors_free":[{"id":1864,"entry_id":1275,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":52,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Conti, Alessandro D.","free_first_name":"Alessandro D.","free_last_name":"Conti","norm_person":{"id":52,"first_name":"Alessandro D.","last_name":"Conti","full_name":"Conti, Alessandro D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1047115123","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La teoria della relazione nei commentatori neoplatonici delle \"Categorie\" di Aristotele","main_title":{"title":"La teoria della relazione nei commentatori neoplatonici delle \"Categorie\" di Aristotele"},"abstract":"Uno dei contributi particolari pi\u00f9 rilevanti che i commentatori neoplatonici hanno recato allo sviluppo e alla sistemazione della dottrina categoriale aristotelica \u00e8 senza dubbio quello relativo all'analisi della nozione di \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9.\r\n\r\nEssi, infatti, nel tentativo di fornire un'interpretazione del settimo capitolo delle Categorie che fosse (i) internamente coerente e (ii) solidale con la lettura generale del trattato, sono giunti a elaborare in forma sufficientemente compiuta un concetto di relazione analogo al moderno concetto di relazione binaria, del tutto assente, invece, negli scritti di Aristotele, che pare conoscere solo un non ben definito concetto di relativo (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9).\r\n\r\nIn altre parole: mentre lo Stagirita (i) operava con la sola nozione di relativo e (ii) concepiva i relativi \u2014 sotto l'influenza di evidenti suggestioni grammaticali \u2014 come le entit\u00e0 che corrispondono ai termini non assoluti del linguaggio (cio\u00e8 non aventi significato se non in riferimento a un altro termine), i neoplatonici, al contrario, saranno in grado (i) di servirsi sia della nozione di relativo che di quella di relazione (\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), e (ii) di concepire, in un certo qual modo, le relazioni come funzioni diadiche (o meglio, come una sorta di corrispettivo ontologico delle nostre funzioni diadiche) e i relativi come gli argomenti che tali funzioni soddisfano.\r\n\r\nLe precise scelte interpretative su alcuni problemi cruciali del trattato, e cio\u00e8:\r\n\r\n la valenza della tavola categoriale,\r\n la distinzione delle categorie,\r\n il tipo d'esistenza degli accidenti\r\n\r\nda una parte, e l'accettazione dell'idea, aristotelicamente corretta, che i \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 devono essere presi a coppie, dall'altra, sono gli elementi che hanno reso possibile ai neoplatonici la formulazione del concetto di relazione (binaria).\r\n\r\nEssi infatti ritenevano:\r\n\r\n che la tavola categoriale avesse una precisa valenza ontologica, ripartendo non solo nomi e concetti, ma anche cose;\r\n che la distinzione tra le dieci categorie fosse reale e non concettuale;\r\n che gli accidenti fossero forme inerenti alle sostanze.\r\n\r\nIn conseguenza dei primi due punti, i neoplatonici erano indotti a difendere l'oggettivit\u00e0, la realt\u00e0 e l'indipendenza della categoria dei \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 e dei suoi appartenenti, e a rifiutare, quindi, qualsiasi tentativo di interpretazione che volesse ridurla, direttamente o indirettamente, alle altre categorie.\r\n\r\nD'altra parte, concepire gli accidenti come forme inerenti alle sostanze equivaleva a considerare il rapporto tra ciascun genere degli accidenti e la sostanza alla stregua di quello della qualit\u00e0, e quindi secondo il modello qualit\u00e0-cosa qualificata.\r\n\r\nCos\u00ec, nel caso dei \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9, i neoplatonici pensavano che l'entit\u00e0 \"padre\" fosse un'entit\u00e0 composta di una sostanza e di una certa forma accidentale, la paternit\u00e0, ad essa inerente, non diversamente da come \"bianco\" \u00e8 un'entit\u00e0 composta da una sostanza e dalla forma della bianchezza.\r\n\r\nPer avere un concetto corretto di relazione bastava, a questo punto, assumere, coerentemente con l'idea che i \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 vanno presi a coppie, che la caratteristica peculiare di queste particolari forme accidentali fosse quella di riferirsi e collegare tra loro due entit\u00e0 distinte.\r\n\r\nScrive, ad esempio, Simplicio:\r\n\r\n \u00ab\u00c8 proprio soltanto della relazione il sussistere una in molti enti, cosa che non capita a nessuna delle altre categorie\u00bb (Simplicio, In Cat., p. 161, 6-8).\r\n\r\nE si legge in Olimpiodoro:\r\n\r\n \u00abInfatti nei relativi una \u00e8 la relazione, ma distinte le entit\u00e0 che l'accolgono\u00bb (Olimpiodoro, In Cat., p. 97, 30-1).\r\n\r\nSu queste nuove basi concettuali, i commentatori neoplatonici potranno sviluppare una teoria dei \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9 sufficientemente omogenea e coerente nelle sue linee pi\u00f9 generali, che adopereranno come modello interpretativo della confusa dottrina aristotelica.\r\n\r\nIn questo modo, essi riusciranno a presentare quest'ultima come un sistema sostanzialmente compiuto e ordinato.\r\n\r\nE anzi, i punti e gli elementi incongrui che ancora vi sopravviveranno saranno dovuti pi\u00f9 a un evidente desiderio di giustificare e spiegare comunque \u2014 per lo meno parzialmente se non in toto \u2014 le affermazioni dello Stagirita, che a delle effettive carenze nella teoria da essi elaborata. [introduction p. 259-263]","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9gdQy8F1p83C8kj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":52,"full_name":"Conti, Alessandro D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1275,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rivista critica di storia della filosofia","volume":"38","issue":"3","pages":"259-283"}},"sort":["La teoria della relazione nei commentatori neoplatonici delle \"Categorie\" di Aristotele"]}

La teoria della relazione nei commenti neoplatonici alle Categorie di Aristotele, 1983
By: Conti, A. D.
Title La teoria della relazione nei commenti neoplatonici alle Categorie di Aristotele
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 1983
Journal Rivista Critica di Storia della Filosofía
Volume 3
Pages 159-283
Categories no categories
Author(s) Conti, A. D.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1563","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1563,"authors_free":[{"id":2730,"entry_id":1563,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Conti, A. D. ","free_first_name":"A. D. ","free_last_name":"Conti","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"La teoria della relazione nei commenti neoplatonici alle Categorie di Aristotele","main_title":{"title":"La teoria della relazione nei commenti neoplatonici alle Categorie di Aristotele"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OTIdcLG5JO15mv8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1563,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rivista Critica di Storia della Filosof\u00eda ","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"159-283"}},"sort":["La teoria della relazione nei commenti neoplatonici alle Categorie di Aristotele"]}

La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'Épictète. Addenda et Corrigenda, 1983
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut
Title La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'Épictète. Addenda et Corrigenda
Type Article
Language French
Date 1983
Journal Revue d'histoire des textes
Volume 11
Pages 387-395
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The present study, as the title indicates, brings some supplementary information and minor corrections to my article on La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le « Manuel » d'Épictète, which appeared in volume VIII (1978) if
the Revue d'Histoire des Textes (pp. 1-108). As part of these addenda, I have identified two new Greek texts, contained in the Neapolitans III. B. 12 : one fragment of Aristotle's Metaphysics, and another fragment of the commentary by Simplicius on Aristotle's De caelo ; each of these fragments is the length of a quaternion. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1496","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1496,"authors_free":[{"id":2596,"entry_id":1496,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Addenda et Corrigenda","main_title":{"title":"La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Addenda et Corrigenda"},"abstract":"The present study, as the title indicates, brings some supplementary information and minor corrections to my article on La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le \u00ab Manuel \u00bb d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, which appeared in volume VIII (1978) if\r\nthe Revue d'Histoire des Textes (pp. 1-108). As part of these addenda, I have identified two new Greek texts, contained in the Neapolitans III. B. 12 : one fragment of Aristotle's Metaphysics, and another fragment of the commentary by Simplicius on Aristotle's De caelo ; each of these fragments is the length of a quaternion. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IyOsWDpihx7t4Q1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1496,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d'histoire des textes","volume":"11","issue":"","pages":"387-395"}},"sort":["La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Addenda et Corrigenda"]}

La vie et l’œuvre de Simplicius d’après des sources grecques et arabes, 1987
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title La vie et l’œuvre de Simplicius d’après des sources grecques et arabes
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 3-39
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
Voici donc les conclusions auxquelles on peut aboutir au sujet des œuvres de Simplicius.

Nous sont conservés : les commentaires sur le Manuel d’Epictète, sur le De caelo, sur la Physique, sur les Catégories, probablement sur le De anima d’Aristote.

Sont perdus, mais attestés de façon plus ou moins sûre : un commentaire sur le premier livre des Éléments d’Euclide, un commentaire sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote, un commentaire sur l’ouvrage de Jamblique consacré à la secte des Pythagoriciens, une Épitomé de la Physique de Théophraste (si le commentaire sur le De anima, où se trouve un renvoi à cette œuvre, est authentique), et peut-être un commentaire sur la Techné d’Hermogène. [conclusion p. 39]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"522","_score":null,"_source":{"id":522,"authors_free":[{"id":728,"entry_id":522,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":729,"entry_id":522,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La vie et l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius d\u2019apr\u00e8s des sources grecques et arabes","main_title":{"title":"La vie et l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius d\u2019apr\u00e8s des sources grecques et arabes"},"abstract":"Voici donc les conclusions auxquelles on peut aboutir au sujet des \u0153uvres de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nNous sont conserv\u00e9s : les commentaires sur le Manuel d\u2019Epict\u00e8te, sur le De caelo, sur la Physique, sur les Cat\u00e9gories, probablement sur le De anima d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nSont perdus, mais attest\u00e9s de fa\u00e7on plus ou moins s\u00fbre : un commentaire sur le premier livre des \u00c9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Euclide, un commentaire sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote, un commentaire sur l\u2019ouvrage de Jamblique consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la secte des Pythagoriciens, une \u00c9pitom\u00e9 de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste (si le commentaire sur le De anima, o\u00f9 se trouve un renvoi \u00e0 cette \u0153uvre, est authentique), et peut-\u00eatre un commentaire sur la Techn\u00e9 d\u2019Hermog\u00e8ne. [conclusion p. 39]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DUSQYbD2Vn7RuIp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":522,"section_of":171,"pages":"3-39","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La vie et l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius d\u2019apr\u00e8s des sources grecques et arabes"]}

Le Néoplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le Néoplatonisme organisé dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique à Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969, 1971
By: Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime (Ed.), Hadot, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Le Néoplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le Néoplatonisme organisé dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique à Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1971
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime , Hadot, Pierre
Translator(s)
The book is a valuable resource for scholars and students of Neoplatonism, providing a comprehensive overview of the history and development of this important philosophical tradition. It is divided into three main sections. The first section focuses on the historical development of Neoplatonism, tracing its origins in the philosophy of Plato and its development through the works of Plotinus, Proclus, and other Neoplatonic thinkers. The second section explores the relationship between Neoplatonism and other philosophical traditions, such as Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism. The third section examines the influence of Neoplatonism on literature and Christianity. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1257","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1257,"authors_free":[{"id":1836,"entry_id":1257,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":23,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","free_first_name":"Pierre-Maxime ","free_last_name":"Schuhl","norm_person":{"id":23,"first_name":"Pierre-Maxime","last_name":"Schuhl","full_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117559718X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2336,"entry_id":1257,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le N\u00e9oplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le N\u00e9oplatonisme organis\u00e9 dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique \u00e0 Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969","main_title":{"title":"Le N\u00e9oplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le N\u00e9oplatonisme organis\u00e9 dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique \u00e0 Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969"},"abstract":"The book is a valuable resource for scholars and students of Neoplatonism, providing a comprehensive overview of the history and development of this important philosophical tradition. It is divided into three main sections. The first section focuses on the historical development of Neoplatonism, tracing its origins in the philosophy of Plato and its development through the works of Plotinus, Proclus, and other Neoplatonic thinkers. The second section explores the relationship between Neoplatonism and other philosophical traditions, such as Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism. The third section examines the influence of Neoplatonism on literature and Christianity. [introduction]","btype":4,"date":"1971","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3Ys5KdoaAlOHE6L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":23,"full_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1257,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Le N\u00e9oplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le N\u00e9oplatonisme organis\u00e9 dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique \u00e0 Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969"]}

Le Problème du Néoplatonisme Alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius., 1978
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut
Title Le Problème du Néoplatonisme Alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius.
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1978
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Études Augustiniennes
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Review by Victor Goldschmidt: "La modestie de son titre ne révèle qu'imparfaitement l'objet et la portée de ce livre. Il s'agit en réalité de réformer l'idée traditionnelle qu'on se faisait de deux courants de la pensée antique. C'est entre le début du ve siècle de notre ère, en effet, jusqu'au début du viie que s'étend l'espace temporel où K. Praechter, suivi par tous les savants venus après lui, avait situé ce qu'il appelait « L'École alexandrine ». Ce mouvement se distinguerait fondamentalement de l'École d'Athènes, par son abandon partiel des constructions métaphysiques de Proclus et de ses élèves, par un retour au « moyen platonisme », par ses rapports de bon voisinage avec les milieux chrétiens, et représenterait « un lieu de culture philosophiquement neutre, sans credo platonico-païen », et plaçant l'étude d'Aristote au-dessus de celle de Platon. Les traits de cette École se verraient avec une particulière netteté dans le commentaire d'Hiéroclès sur les Vers Dorés attribués à Pythagore, et dans le commentaire que Simplicius, avant d'être entré en rapport avec l'École d'Athènes, a consacré au Manuel d'Épictète. Or c'est précisément en préparant une édition commentée du commentaire de Simplicius (à paraître dans la Collection G. Budé), que l'A. a rencontré « le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin » ; la thèse traditionnelle lui a semblé alors insoutenable, pour des raisons tant historiques que de doctrine.
En bref, comme le dit l'auteur dans une formule remarquable, ce que l'on a pris pour un « néoplatonisme plus simple » est en réalité un « néoplatonisme simplifié », et même « fragmenté », et cela uniquement pour les besoins de l'enseignement. Il est montré, en effet, d'une façon convaincante, que les deux Commentaires, d'Hiéroclès et de Simplicius, relèvent de ce que nous appellerions une propédeutique, c'est-à-dire qu'ils s'adressent à des débutants qu'il s'agit d'initier dans la « première » partie de la philosophie, réputée la plus accessible, en l'espèce l'éthique. On sait que ce problème pédagogique s'est posé dès le début dans l'École stoïcienne et qu'il a été longuement discuté par les commentateurs d'Aristote, qui donnent toutefois, généralement, la première place à la logique. Le VIIe chapitre apporte une contribution importante à l'histoire de ce problème.
D'où l'on voit déjà que c'est en apparence seulement que le résultat de l'ouvrage est négatif. Sans doute s'agit-il surtout de réfuter la thèse de K. Praechter, renouvelée par A. Cameron et Ph. Merlan ; la Conclusion se termine sur cette affirmation qu'« il n'y a pas d'école néoplatonicienne d'Alexandrie dont les tendances doctrinales différeraient des tendances propres à l'école d'Athènes ». De fait, le livre contient une interprétation développée des fragments d'Hiéroclès conservés par Photius et, surtout, de son Commentaire sur les Vers Dorés, montrant l'accord de ces textes avec le néoplatonisme « athénien ». Ces exégèses sont conduites avec fermeté, appuyées sur une vaste information, et emportent la conviction, quoi qu'il en soit de tel ou tel point de détail. Quelques questions, d'ordre plus général, pourraient être pesées. — P. 37 : il est certain que le thème du « philosophe dans l'État corrompu » est un lieu commun et que le τειχίον, dans le texte de Simplicius est clairement une réminiscence de la République (VI, 496 c-d). Est-ce suffisant pour infirmer la thèse d'A. Cameron, qui voit dans ce texte une allusion à la place faite aux philosophes néoplatoniciens après l'édit de Justinien ? De telles citations, l'auteur en convient lui-même deux pages plus loin, n'excluent nullement un « intérêt personnel » et, plus généralement, la négation de principe de « remarques autobiographiques chez les auteurs antiques » (p. 39) est exagérée et même inexacte. — P. 128 : l'exposé de Chalcidius sur le Destin, qui est un texte canonique et qui au surplus avait servi à K. Praechter à caractériser le « moyen platonisme », méritait mieux qu'un bref résumé : il était bon de rappeler qu'il s'agit, à la suite d'ailleurs de Chrysippe, du commentaire d'un texte du Xe Livre de la République ; on ne peut pas, en l'espèce, parler de « l'implication mutuelle de la providence et de VHeimarménè », et la note 40 simplifie le problème de la liberté stoïcienne, qu'on n'était pas sans doute obligé de traiter, mais auquel il fallait laisser sa complexité de problème, précisément ; l'on ne saurait écrire, en tout état de cause, que « pour les choses qui sont faites par fatalité, leur contraire aurait pu aussi bien se faire », thèse qui ne semble avoir été soutenue que par le seul Cléanthe. — Le chapitre VII répond à la question, naguère posée par R. Walzer : « Comment peut-on expliquer le fait que Simplicius, en tant que platonicien, commente les maximes éthiques d'un stoïcien ? ». La réponse combine essentiellement deux considérations : l'apathie du sage stoïcien est déjà admise dans le traité de Plotin Sur les Vertus (I, ii) et le caractère sententieux du Manuel qui convient bien à des débutants. Sans doute, du point de vue historique, est-ce là tout ce qu'on peut alléguer. De fait, l'éthique plotinienne ne se résume pas à l'idéal d'apathie et le genre gnomologique qu'on peut faire remonter aux Sept Sages avait trouvé bien d'autres illustrations, ne serait-ce que, comme l'auteur le rappelle avec raison, chez les Pythagoriciens. On se demandera plutôt si, de la part de Simplicius, le choix du Manuel ne s'explique pas plus simplement par l'attrait extraordinaire que ce petit livre a exercé de tout temps sur les lecteurs, et cela en dehors de toute appartenance à telle ou telle secte.
Une dernière question, enfin. On doit considérer que Mme Hadot a établi son propos, et que l'on ne parlera plus d'une « école alexandrine », opposée à celle d'Athènes et différenciée de celle-ci selon les traits que Praechter avait cru pouvoir constater. Il reste qu'il y a eu, dans la période en question, des néoplatoniciens vivant et enseignant à Alexandrie. Même en admettant leur « orthodoxie » foncière, ces hommes (sans parler d'Hypatie qui a subi pour la philosophie un martyre qui lui eût été épargné à Athènes) ne présentent-ils pas quelques caractères communs : rien que leur environnement culturel le ferait conjecturer. Mais ce serait là l'objet d'une autre recherche, complémentaire de celle-ci.
En attendant, on saura gré à l'auteur de cet ouvrage doublement précieux : par ses résultats intrinsèques, et en tant qu'introduction à son édition à paraître d'un texte jusqu'à présent fort peu étudié."

{"_index":"sire","_id":"180","_score":null,"_source":{"id":180,"authors_free":[{"id":236,"entry_id":180,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le Probl\u00e8me du N\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius.","main_title":{"title":"Le Probl\u00e8me du N\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius."},"abstract":"Review by Victor Goldschmidt: \"La modestie de son titre ne r\u00e9v\u00e8le qu'imparfaitement l'objet et la port\u00e9e de ce livre. Il s'agit en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de r\u00e9former l'id\u00e9e traditionnelle qu'on se faisait de deux courants de la pens\u00e9e antique. C'est entre le d\u00e9but du ve si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, en effet, jusqu'au d\u00e9but du viie que s'\u00e9tend l'espace temporel o\u00f9 K. Praechter, suivi par tous les savants venus apr\u00e8s lui, avait situ\u00e9 ce qu'il appelait \u00ab L'\u00c9cole alexandrine \u00bb. Ce mouvement se distinguerait fondamentalement de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes, par son abandon partiel des constructions m\u00e9taphysiques de Proclus et de ses \u00e9l\u00e8ves, par un retour au \u00ab moyen platonisme \u00bb, par ses rapports de bon voisinage avec les milieux chr\u00e9tiens, et repr\u00e9senterait \u00ab un lieu de culture philosophiquement neutre, sans credo platonico-pa\u00efen \u00bb, et pla\u00e7ant l'\u00e9tude d'Aristote au-dessus de celle de Platon. Les traits de cette \u00c9cole se verraient avec une particuli\u00e8re nettet\u00e9 dans le commentaire d'Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s sur les Vers Dor\u00e9s attribu\u00e9s \u00e0 Pythagore, et dans le commentaire que Simplicius, avant d'\u00eatre entr\u00e9 en rapport avec l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes, a consacr\u00e9 au Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Or c'est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment en pr\u00e9parant une \u00e9dition comment\u00e9e du commentaire de Simplicius (\u00e0 para\u00eetre dans la Collection G. Bud\u00e9), que l'A. a rencontr\u00e9 \u00ab le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin \u00bb ; la th\u00e8se traditionnelle lui a sembl\u00e9 alors insoutenable, pour des raisons tant historiques que de doctrine.\r\nEn bref, comme le dit l'auteur dans une formule remarquable, ce que l'on a pris pour un \u00ab n\u00e9oplatonisme plus simple \u00bb est en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 un \u00ab n\u00e9oplatonisme simplifi\u00e9 \u00bb, et m\u00eame \u00ab fragment\u00e9 \u00bb, et cela uniquement pour les besoins de l'enseignement. Il est montr\u00e9, en effet, d'une fa\u00e7on convaincante, que les deux Commentaires, d'Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et de Simplicius, rel\u00e8vent de ce que nous appellerions une prop\u00e9deutique, c'est-\u00e0-dire qu'ils s'adressent \u00e0 des d\u00e9butants qu'il s'agit d'initier dans la \u00ab premi\u00e8re \u00bb partie de la philosophie, r\u00e9put\u00e9e la plus accessible, en l'esp\u00e8ce l'\u00e9thique. On sait que ce probl\u00e8me p\u00e9dagogique s'est pos\u00e9 d\u00e8s le d\u00e9but dans l'\u00c9cole sto\u00efcienne et qu'il a \u00e9t\u00e9 longuement discut\u00e9 par les commentateurs d'Aristote, qui donnent toutefois, g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, la premi\u00e8re place \u00e0 la logique. Le VIIe chapitre apporte une contribution importante \u00e0 l'histoire de ce probl\u00e8me.\r\nD'o\u00f9 l'on voit d\u00e9j\u00e0 que c'est en apparence seulement que le r\u00e9sultat de l'ouvrage est n\u00e9gatif. Sans doute s'agit-il surtout de r\u00e9futer la th\u00e8se de K. Praechter, renouvel\u00e9e par A. Cameron et Ph. Merlan ; la Conclusion se termine sur cette affirmation qu'\u00ab il n'y a pas d'\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'Alexandrie dont les tendances doctrinales diff\u00e9reraient des tendances propres \u00e0 l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes \u00bb. De fait, le livre contient une interpr\u00e9tation d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e des fragments d'Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s conserv\u00e9s par Photius et, surtout, de son Commentaire sur les Vers Dor\u00e9s, montrant l'accord de ces textes avec le n\u00e9oplatonisme \u00ab ath\u00e9nien \u00bb. Ces ex\u00e9g\u00e8ses sont conduites avec fermet\u00e9, appuy\u00e9es sur une vaste information, et emportent la conviction, quoi qu'il en soit de tel ou tel point de d\u00e9tail. Quelques questions, d'ordre plus g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, pourraient \u00eatre pes\u00e9es. \u2014 P. 37 : il est certain que le th\u00e8me du \u00ab philosophe dans l'\u00c9tat corrompu \u00bb est un lieu commun et que le \u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, dans le texte de Simplicius est clairement une r\u00e9miniscence de la R\u00e9publique (VI, 496 c-d). Est-ce suffisant pour infirmer la th\u00e8se d'A. Cameron, qui voit dans ce texte une allusion \u00e0 la place faite aux philosophes n\u00e9oplatoniciens apr\u00e8s l'\u00e9dit de Justinien ? De telles citations, l'auteur en convient lui-m\u00eame deux pages plus loin, n'excluent nullement un \u00ab int\u00e9r\u00eat personnel \u00bb et, plus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, la n\u00e9gation de principe de \u00ab remarques autobiographiques chez les auteurs antiques \u00bb (p. 39) est exag\u00e9r\u00e9e et m\u00eame inexacte. \u2014 P. 128 : l'expos\u00e9 de Chalcidius sur le Destin, qui est un texte canonique et qui au surplus avait servi \u00e0 K. Praechter \u00e0 caract\u00e9riser le \u00ab moyen platonisme \u00bb, m\u00e9ritait mieux qu'un bref r\u00e9sum\u00e9 : il \u00e9tait bon de rappeler qu'il s'agit, \u00e0 la suite d'ailleurs de Chrysippe, du commentaire d'un texte du Xe Livre de la R\u00e9publique ; on ne peut pas, en l'esp\u00e8ce, parler de \u00ab l'implication mutuelle de la providence et de VHeimarm\u00e9n\u00e8 \u00bb, et la note 40 simplifie le probl\u00e8me de la libert\u00e9 sto\u00efcienne, qu'on n'\u00e9tait pas sans doute oblig\u00e9 de traiter, mais auquel il fallait laisser sa complexit\u00e9 de probl\u00e8me, pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment ; l'on ne saurait \u00e9crire, en tout \u00e9tat de cause, que \u00ab pour les choses qui sont faites par fatalit\u00e9, leur contraire aurait pu aussi bien se faire \u00bb, th\u00e8se qui ne semble avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 soutenue que par le seul Cl\u00e9anthe. \u2014 Le chapitre VII r\u00e9pond \u00e0 la question, nagu\u00e8re pos\u00e9e par R. Walzer : \u00ab Comment peut-on expliquer le fait que Simplicius, en tant que platonicien, commente les maximes \u00e9thiques d'un sto\u00efcien ? \u00bb. La r\u00e9ponse combine essentiellement deux consid\u00e9rations : l'apathie du sage sto\u00efcien est d\u00e9j\u00e0 admise dans le trait\u00e9 de Plotin Sur les Vertus (I, ii) et le caract\u00e8re sententieux du Manuel qui convient bien \u00e0 des d\u00e9butants. Sans doute, du point de vue historique, est-ce l\u00e0 tout ce qu'on peut all\u00e9guer. De fait, l'\u00e9thique plotinienne ne se r\u00e9sume pas \u00e0 l'id\u00e9al d'apathie et le genre gnomologique qu'on peut faire remonter aux Sept Sages avait trouv\u00e9 bien d'autres illustrations, ne serait-ce que, comme l'auteur le rappelle avec raison, chez les Pythagoriciens. On se demandera plut\u00f4t si, de la part de Simplicius, le choix du Manuel ne s'explique pas plus simplement par l'attrait extraordinaire que ce petit livre a exerc\u00e9 de tout temps sur les lecteurs, et cela en dehors de toute appartenance \u00e0 telle ou telle secte.\r\nUne derni\u00e8re question, enfin. On doit consid\u00e9rer que Mme Hadot a \u00e9tabli son propos, et que l'on ne parlera plus d'une \u00ab \u00e9cole alexandrine \u00bb, oppos\u00e9e \u00e0 celle d'Ath\u00e8nes et diff\u00e9renci\u00e9e de celle-ci selon les traits que Praechter avait cru pouvoir constater. Il reste qu'il y a eu, dans la p\u00e9riode en question, des n\u00e9oplatoniciens vivant et enseignant \u00e0 Alexandrie. M\u00eame en admettant leur \u00ab orthodoxie \u00bb fonci\u00e8re, ces hommes (sans parler d'Hypatie qui a subi pour la philosophie un martyre qui lui e\u00fbt \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9pargn\u00e9 \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes) ne pr\u00e9sentent-ils pas quelques caract\u00e8res communs : rien que leur environnement culturel le ferait conjecturer. Mais ce serait l\u00e0 l'objet d'une autre recherche, compl\u00e9mentaire de celle-ci.\r\nEn attendant, on saura gr\u00e9 \u00e0 l'auteur de cet ouvrage doublement pr\u00e9cieux : par ses r\u00e9sultats intrins\u00e8ques, et en tant qu'introduction \u00e0 son \u00e9dition \u00e0 para\u00eetre d'un texte jusqu'\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent fort peu \u00e9tudi\u00e9.\"","btype":1,"date":"1978","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wkXALs20MmtJp9g","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":180,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"\u00c9tudes Augustiniennes","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Le Probl\u00e8me du N\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius."]}

Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes, 1982
By: Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile, Brisson, Luc (Ed.), Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile (Ed.), Goulet, Richard (Ed.), O’Brien, Denis (Ed.)
Title Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1982
Published in Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux préliminaires et index grec complet
Pages 277-280
Categories no categories
Author(s) Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile
Editor(s) Brisson, Luc , Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile , Goulet, Richard , O’Brien, Denis
Translator(s)
Les  écoles  néoplatoniciennes  postérieures  ont  établi  un  programme d’enseignement  qu’on  peut  reconstituer  dans  ses  grandes  lignes.  Voici quelles sont les principales étapes de ce cursus  : a) Propédeutique morale : Étude de textes comme le Manuel d’Épictète et le Carmen aureum pythagoricien pour introduire la vie morale. Ces œuvres étaient souvent accompagnées de commentaires, notamment par Simplicius et Hiéroclès.

b) Introduction générale à la philosophie : Basée sur l'Isagogè de Porphyre, cette étape proposait une définition et des divisions de la philosophie (théorétique et pratique), suivant un schéma attribué à Porphyre ou Andronicus.

c) Étude préparatoire à Aristote : Lecture et commentaire de l'Isagogè comme introduction indispensable aux Catégories d’Aristote, en appliquant un cadre méthodologique précis avant d’entamer le commentaire.

d) Introduction à Aristote : Les commentaires sur les Catégories soulevaient dix questions essentielles sur Aristote, incluant son style, la structure de ses écrits, et les qualités requises pour ses lecteurs et exégètes.

e) Cycle d’études aristotéliciennes : Études couvrant logique, éthique, politique, physique et théologie sur une durée estimée à deux ou trois ans. Ce cycle préparait les étudiants à l’étude des dialogues platoniciens.

f) Étude de Platon : Introduction systématique à Platon, incluant l’ordre de lecture des dialogues. Cette phase s’inspirait également des médio-platoniciens comme Albinus et Alcinoos.

g) Oracles chaldaïques : Étudiés comme le sommet de la formation philosophique. Proclus et d’autres néoplatoniciens harmonisaient ces enseignements avec ceux de Platon.

h) Poésie orphique : Considérée comme le niveau suprême, la poésie orphique, notamment les Hymnes, faisait l’objet de commentaires approfondis, particulièrement chez Proclus et Syrianus. [derived from the entire text]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"534","_score":null,"_source":{"id":534,"authors_free":[{"id":754,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile","free_last_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2105,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":18,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":{"id":18,"first_name":"Luc","last_name":"Brisson","full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114433259","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2106,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile ","free_last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2107,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2108,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O\u2019Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O\u2019Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes","main_title":{"title":"Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes"},"abstract":"Les \u00e9coles n\u00e9oplatoniciennes post\u00e9rieures ont \u00e9tabli un programme d\u2019enseignement qu\u2019on peut reconstituer dans ses grandes lignes. Voici quelles sont les principales \u00e9tapes de ce cursus : a) Prop\u00e9deutique morale : \u00c9tude de textes comme le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te et le Carmen aureum pythagoricien pour introduire la vie morale. Ces \u0153uvres \u00e9taient souvent accompagn\u00e9es de commentaires, notamment par Simplicius et Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s.\r\n\r\nb) Introduction g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 la philosophie : Bas\u00e9e sur l'Isagog\u00e8 de Porphyre, cette \u00e9tape proposait une d\u00e9finition et des divisions de la philosophie (th\u00e9or\u00e9tique et pratique), suivant un sch\u00e9ma attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Porphyre ou Andronicus.\r\n\r\nc) \u00c9tude pr\u00e9paratoire \u00e0 Aristote : Lecture et commentaire de l'Isagog\u00e8 comme introduction indispensable aux Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote, en appliquant un cadre m\u00e9thodologique pr\u00e9cis avant d\u2019entamer le commentaire.\r\n\r\nd) Introduction \u00e0 Aristote : Les commentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories soulevaient dix questions essentielles sur Aristote, incluant son style, la structure de ses \u00e9crits, et les qualit\u00e9s requises pour ses lecteurs et ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes.\r\n\r\ne) Cycle d\u2019\u00e9tudes aristot\u00e9liciennes : \u00c9tudes couvrant logique, \u00e9thique, politique, physique et th\u00e9ologie sur une dur\u00e9e estim\u00e9e \u00e0 deux ou trois ans. Ce cycle pr\u00e9parait les \u00e9tudiants \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des dialogues platoniciens.\r\n\r\nf) \u00c9tude de Platon : Introduction syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 Platon, incluant l\u2019ordre de lecture des dialogues. Cette phase s\u2019inspirait \u00e9galement des m\u00e9dio-platoniciens comme Albinus et Alcinoos.\r\n\r\ng) Oracles chalda\u00efques : \u00c9tudi\u00e9s comme le sommet de la formation philosophique. Proclus et d\u2019autres n\u00e9oplatoniciens harmonisaient ces enseignements avec ceux de Platon.\r\n\r\nh) Po\u00e9sie orphique : Consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme le niveau supr\u00eame, la po\u00e9sie orphique, notamment les Hymnes, faisait l\u2019objet de commentaires approfondis, particuli\u00e8rement chez Proclus et Syrianus. [derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"1982","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kPjIT5NBhbhdLeA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":18,"full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":534,"section_of":377,"pages":"277-280","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":377,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux pr\u00e9liminaires et index grec complet","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brisson1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1982","abstract":"Il est apparu que le dernier mot n'avait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 dit sur ce texte de Porphyre, capital pour notre connaissance de la personne et de l'\u00e9cole de Plotin, et plus largement de la vie philosophique au IIIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re. Car on est en pr\u00e9sence d'un document dont la simplicit\u00e9 est illusoire : la traduction m\u00eame en est h\u00e9riss\u00e9e de difficult\u00e9s, qui, dans nombre de cas, semblent avoir jusqu'ici \u00e9chapp\u00e9 \u00e0 l'attention ; d'autre part, la valeur historique de cette biographie, indubitable en apparence, ne cesse en v\u00e9rit\u00e9 de faire probl\u00e8me par suite de l'application de Porphyre \u00e0 se donner en toute circonstance le beau r\u00f4le.\r\nDe telles consid\u00e9rations, et d'autres encore, ont donn\u00e9 \u00e0 penser que l'on ne perdrait pas son temps en reprenant l'\u00e9tude de ce vieux texte sur des bases enti\u00e8rement nouvelles. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dg4i4rIRJWOzIZa","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":377,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"6","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes"]}

Le temps intégral selon Damascius, 1980
By: Galperine, Marie-Claire
Title Le temps intégral selon Damascius
Type Article
Language French
Date 1980
Journal Les Études philosophiques
Volume 3: Doctrines du temps
Pages 325-341
Categories no categories
Author(s) Galperine, Marie-Claire
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This text explores Aristotle's unresolved aporias on the nature of time in Physics IV (217b30 - 218a30), highlighting a metaphysical dilemma: whether time belongs to being or non-being. Aristotle leaves the question undecided, shifting focus to the nature of time, a problem he may have deliberately avoided. Ancient thinkers, however, did not shy away from addressing these aporias.

Damascius offers a resolution to Aristotle’s dilemmas in his commentary on Plato’s Parmenides and his lost treatise on number, place, and time, fragments of which are preserved by Simplicius. Damascius’ concept of "integral time" distinguishes between two meanings of "now": Aristotle’s punctual "now," a limit of time, and Damascius’ "present," a temporal continuum. Simplicius, though critical of Damascius’ ideas, acknowledges this distinction as key to resolving Aristotle’s aporias.

Simplicius' Corollarium de tempore expands on this, presenting time as simultaneously existent in its entirety ("integral time"), a concept rooted in Damascius’ philosophy. However, Simplicius’ partial understanding of Damascius’ thought highlights his struggle to reconcile Damascius’ notion of time with Aristotelian paradigms.

The analysis situates Damascius’ ideas within the framework of both Plato’s Parmenides and Aristotle’s Physics, showcasing how he integrates Platonic metaphysics with Aristotelian logic to address foundational questions about the nature and being of time. [introduction p. 325-327]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"544","_score":null,"_source":{"id":544,"authors_free":[{"id":768,"entry_id":544,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":123,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Galperine, Marie-Claire","free_first_name":"Marie-Claire","free_last_name":"Galperine","norm_person":{"id":123,"first_name":"Marie-Claire","last_name":"Galperine","full_name":"Galperine, Marie-Claire","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le temps int\u00e9gral selon Damascius","main_title":{"title":"Le temps int\u00e9gral selon Damascius"},"abstract":"This text explores Aristotle's unresolved aporias on the nature of time in Physics IV (217b30 - 218a30), highlighting a metaphysical dilemma: whether time belongs to being or non-being. Aristotle leaves the question undecided, shifting focus to the nature of time, a problem he may have deliberately avoided. Ancient thinkers, however, did not shy away from addressing these aporias.\r\n\r\nDamascius offers a resolution to Aristotle\u2019s dilemmas in his commentary on Plato\u2019s Parmenides and his lost treatise on number, place, and time, fragments of which are preserved by Simplicius. Damascius\u2019 concept of \"integral time\" distinguishes between two meanings of \"now\": Aristotle\u2019s punctual \"now,\" a limit of time, and Damascius\u2019 \"present,\" a temporal continuum. Simplicius, though critical of Damascius\u2019 ideas, acknowledges this distinction as key to resolving Aristotle\u2019s aporias.\r\n\r\nSimplicius' Corollarium de tempore expands on this, presenting time as simultaneously existent in its entirety (\"integral time\"), a concept rooted in Damascius\u2019 philosophy. However, Simplicius\u2019 partial understanding of Damascius\u2019 thought highlights his struggle to reconcile Damascius\u2019 notion of time with Aristotelian paradigms.\r\n\r\nThe analysis situates Damascius\u2019 ideas within the framework of both Plato\u2019s Parmenides and Aristotle\u2019s Physics, showcasing how he integrates Platonic metaphysics with Aristotelian logic to address foundational questions about the nature and being of time. [introduction p. 325-327]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/K2X5R1lQigoI37E","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":123,"full_name":"Galperine, Marie-Claire","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":544,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques","volume":"3: Doctrines du temps","issue":"","pages":"325-341"}},"sort":["Le temps int\u00e9gral selon Damascius"]}

Le thème de la grande année d'Héraclite aux Stoiciens, 1989
By: Bels, Jacques
Title Le thème de la grande année d'Héraclite aux Stoiciens
Type Article
Language French
Date 1989
Journal Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
Volume 7
Issue 2
Pages 169-183
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bels, Jacques
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
D’Héraclite aux stoïciens, en passant par Platon qui adopte un point de vue analogue à celui de l’Éphésien, le discours sur la Grande Année est au cœur même de la conception philosophique, même s’il subit une modification dans son appréhension. En effet, à une lecture (re)générante, le stoïcisme substitue une perspective finaliste quand il privilégie le lien Grande Année-ekpyrosis. Cette accentuation d’une Grande Année conçue comme limite, au détriment de la régénération, se marque également dans la liaison ekpyrosis-fin de la survie limitée. En effet, selon les stoïciens, à la disparition des corps, la partie spirituelle subsiste un certain temps avant de disparaître à son tour.

Conséquence logique de la thèse selon laquelle ce qui est engendré doit disparaître, cette mort de l’âme correspond, chez Cléanthe et Chrysippe, à la conflagration universelle. Pour le premier, en effet, toutes les âmes survivent jusqu’à l’embrasement final, tandis que, pour le second, seules les âmes des sages connaissent ce privilège, celles des "insensés" disparaissant plus rapidement.

Dès lors, quand il établit une parenté entre les stoïciens et Héraclite, Simplicius a partiellement raison : ces penseurs ont posé l’existence d’une Grande Année. Il oublie simplement de préciser qu’ils lui ont assigné des priorités différentes. [conclusion p. 183]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"831","_score":null,"_source":{"id":831,"authors_free":[{"id":1235,"entry_id":831,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":421,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bels, Jacques","free_first_name":"Jacques","free_last_name":"Bels","norm_person":{"id":421,"first_name":"Jacques","last_name":"Bels","full_name":"Bels, Jacques","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le th\u00e8me de la grande ann\u00e9e d'H\u00e9raclite aux Stoiciens","main_title":{"title":"Le th\u00e8me de la grande ann\u00e9e d'H\u00e9raclite aux Stoiciens"},"abstract":"D\u2019H\u00e9raclite aux sto\u00efciens, en passant par Platon qui adopte un point de vue analogue \u00e0 celui de l\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e9sien, le discours sur la Grande Ann\u00e9e est au c\u0153ur m\u00eame de la conception philosophique, m\u00eame s\u2019il subit une modification dans son appr\u00e9hension. En effet, \u00e0 une lecture (re)g\u00e9n\u00e9rante, le sto\u00efcisme substitue une perspective finaliste quand il privil\u00e9gie le lien Grande Ann\u00e9e-ekpyrosis. Cette accentuation d\u2019une Grande Ann\u00e9e con\u00e7ue comme limite, au d\u00e9triment de la r\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9ration, se marque \u00e9galement dans la liaison ekpyrosis-fin de la survie limit\u00e9e. En effet, selon les sto\u00efciens, \u00e0 la disparition des corps, la partie spirituelle subsiste un certain temps avant de dispara\u00eetre \u00e0 son tour.\r\n\r\nCons\u00e9quence logique de la th\u00e8se selon laquelle ce qui est engendr\u00e9 doit dispara\u00eetre, cette mort de l\u2019\u00e2me correspond, chez Cl\u00e9anthe et Chrysippe, \u00e0 la conflagration universelle. Pour le premier, en effet, toutes les \u00e2mes survivent jusqu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019embrasement final, tandis que, pour le second, seules les \u00e2mes des sages connaissent ce privil\u00e8ge, celles des \"insens\u00e9s\" disparaissant plus rapidement.\r\n\r\nD\u00e8s lors, quand il \u00e9tablit une parent\u00e9 entre les sto\u00efciens et H\u00e9raclite, Simplicius a partiellement raison : ces penseurs ont pos\u00e9 l\u2019existence d\u2019une Grande Ann\u00e9e. Il oublie simplement de pr\u00e9ciser qu\u2019ils lui ont assign\u00e9 des priorit\u00e9s diff\u00e9rentes. [conclusion p. 183]","btype":3,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Wt3OVL4zzPJWT2a","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":421,"full_name":"Bels, Jacques","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":831,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"7","issue":"2","pages":"169-183"}},"sort":["Le th\u00e8me de la grande ann\u00e9e d'H\u00e9raclite aux Stoiciens"]}

Les calendriers en usage à Harran d’après les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote, 1987
By: Tardieu, Michel, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Les calendriers en usage à Harran d’après les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 40-57
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tardieu, Michel
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
L’ordre des saisons adopté par Simplicius pour énumérer et classer les calendriers groupe d’abord deux calendriers luni-solaires (attique et asiate), puis deux calendriers solaires (romain et arabe). Comme dans l’Athènes de Proclus finissant, le premier de ces calendriers n’était en usage qu’à l’Académie. Mais, à la différence de la situation contemporaine de Marinus écrivant la biographie de son maître, la symbolique des lunaisons du calendrier attique, avec un cycle analogue de fêtes et de rites, était réalité hors de l’enceinte de l’Académie, dans la société harrânienne.

Le calendrier luni-solaire attique en usage dans l’École platonicienne de Harrân ne se différenciait du calendrier luni-solaire local hérité de la colonisation macédonienne que par son début d’année et les noms de ses mois. Le passage de l’un à l’autre n’offrait aucune difficulté. Plus besoin, comme le faisait Marinus, de julianiser artificiellement le nombre du jour du mois attique pour transcrire une date du calendrier de la ville.

L’hémérologe de Florence mettant la nouvelle année du calendrier asiate le 23 septembre et Jean Lydus faisant partir le calendrier attique du 23 juin, il y avait totale correspondance du point de vue du jour du mois entre le calendrier académique dont Lydus donne les noms attiques et le calendrier civil et religieux de la ville, dont l’Hémerologion et al-Hàsimî transmettent respectivement les noms macédoniens et araméens.

L’exemple des débuts d’année, développé par Simplicius, offre un déroulement du temps harrânien à quatre entrées festives, comme l’a bien noté al-Bîrünî. L’année académique des Platoniciens, réglée sur le solstice d’été (calendrier attique), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ Hekatombaiôn, qui correspondait respectivement au 1ᵉʳ Lôos (Éphèse), au 23 juin (Romains), au 4 Panemos (Arabes).

L’année civile et religieuse de la ville, réglée sur l’équinoxe d’automne (calendrier asiate), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ Dios/Tišrîn al-awwal, qui correspondait au 23 septembre (Romains), au 6 Gorpiaios (Arabes), au 1ᵉʳ Puanepsiôn (Athéniens).

L’année civile et religieuse de l’Empire, réglée sur le solstice d’hiver (calendrier romain), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ janvier/Kânûn II, qui correspondait au 16 Audunaios (Arabes), au 8 Gamêliôn (Athéniens), au 8 Peritios (Éphèse).

L’année coutumière de la région, réglée sur l’équinoxe vernal (calendrier arabe), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ Xanthikos/Nîsân, qui correspondait à la veille du 30 Elaphêboliôn (Athéniens), au 22 mars (Romains), et à la veille du 30 Xanthikos (Éphèse).

La parenthèse sur les débuts d’année, ouverte par Simplicius à propos de l’exemple du début du mois choisi par Aristote pour illustrer le concept de consécution temporelle, se referme sur trois acquis essentiels.

Elle constitue le plus ancien témoignage connu sur les calendriers en usage chez les Greco-araméens de Harrân. Elle permet d’identifier, par leur origine historique et leur appartenance nationale, les calendriers fournis par al-Sarahsî, al-Hàsimî et Wahb.

Elle confirme que c’est bien là, dans cette «ville bénie, parce que jamais souillée par l’erreur de Nazareth», que trouvèrent refuge les derniers Platoniciens après 533.

Dans les calendriers de Wahb et d’al-Hâsimî, se côtoient pêle-mêle les noms de divinités babyloniennes, égyptiennes, grecques, anatoliennes, syriennes et arabes. Un tel syncrétisme ne pouvait que faire bon ménage avec la religion de l’Académie.

Selon l’objectif de l’École d’Athènes, en effet, le philosophe ne devait se contenter d’être le thérapeute d’une seule ville, ou celui des coutumes de quelques peuples. Il lui fallait aussi être «l’hiérophante du monde entier».

En s’installant à Harrân à leur retour d’Iran, les compagnons de Damascius avaient choisi l’endroit idéal pour réaliser un tel programme. [conclusion p. 55-57]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"475","_score":null,"_source":{"id":475,"authors_free":[{"id":640,"entry_id":475,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":331,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tardieu, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Tardieu","norm_person":{"id":331,"first_name":"Michel","last_name":"Tardieu","full_name":"Tardieu, Michel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140490701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":641,"entry_id":475,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les calendriers en usage \u00e0 Harran d\u2019apr\u00e8s les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Les calendriers en usage \u00e0 Harran d\u2019apr\u00e8s les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"L\u2019ordre des saisons adopt\u00e9 par Simplicius pour \u00e9num\u00e9rer et classer les calendriers groupe d\u2019abord deux calendriers luni-solaires (attique et asiate), puis deux calendriers solaires (romain et arabe). Comme dans l\u2019Ath\u00e8nes de Proclus finissant, le premier de ces calendriers n\u2019\u00e9tait en usage qu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie. Mais, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence de la situation contemporaine de Marinus \u00e9crivant la biographie de son ma\u00eetre, la symbolique des lunaisons du calendrier attique, avec un cycle analogue de f\u00eates et de rites, \u00e9tait r\u00e9alit\u00e9 hors de l\u2019enceinte de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie, dans la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 harr\u00e2nienne.\r\n\r\nLe calendrier luni-solaire attique en usage dans l\u2019\u00c9cole platonicienne de Harr\u00e2n ne se diff\u00e9renciait du calendrier luni-solaire local h\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la colonisation mac\u00e9donienne que par son d\u00e9but d\u2019ann\u00e9e et les noms de ses mois. Le passage de l\u2019un \u00e0 l\u2019autre n\u2019offrait aucune difficult\u00e9. Plus besoin, comme le faisait Marinus, de julianiser artificiellement le nombre du jour du mois attique pour transcrire une date du calendrier de la ville.\r\n\r\nL\u2019h\u00e9m\u00e9rologe de Florence mettant la nouvelle ann\u00e9e du calendrier asiate le 23 septembre et Jean Lydus faisant partir le calendrier attique du 23 juin, il y avait totale correspondance du point de vue du jour du mois entre le calendrier acad\u00e9mique dont Lydus donne les noms attiques et le calendrier civil et religieux de la ville, dont l\u2019H\u00e9merologion et al-H\u00e0sim\u00ee transmettent respectivement les noms mac\u00e9doniens et aram\u00e9ens.\r\n\r\nL\u2019exemple des d\u00e9buts d\u2019ann\u00e9e, d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 par Simplicius, offre un d\u00e9roulement du temps harr\u00e2nien \u00e0 quatre entr\u00e9es festives, comme l\u2019a bien not\u00e9 al-B\u00eer\u00fcn\u00ee. L\u2019ann\u00e9e acad\u00e9mique des Platoniciens, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur le solstice d\u2019\u00e9t\u00e9 (calendrier attique), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Hekatombai\u00f4n, qui correspondait respectivement au 1\u1d49\u02b3 L\u00f4os (\u00c9ph\u00e8se), au 23 juin (Romains), au 4 Panemos (Arabes).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ann\u00e9e civile et religieuse de la ville, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur l\u2019\u00e9quinoxe d\u2019automne (calendrier asiate), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Dios\/Ti\u0161r\u00een al-awwal, qui correspondait au 23 septembre (Romains), au 6 Gorpiaios (Arabes), au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Puanepsi\u00f4n (Ath\u00e9niens).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ann\u00e9e civile et religieuse de l\u2019Empire, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur le solstice d\u2019hiver (calendrier romain), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 janvier\/K\u00e2n\u00fbn II, qui correspondait au 16 Audunaios (Arabes), au 8 Gam\u00eali\u00f4n (Ath\u00e9niens), au 8 Peritios (\u00c9ph\u00e8se).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ann\u00e9e coutumi\u00e8re de la r\u00e9gion, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur l\u2019\u00e9quinoxe vernal (calendrier arabe), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Xanthikos\/N\u00ees\u00e2n, qui correspondait \u00e0 la veille du 30 Elaph\u00eaboli\u00f4n (Ath\u00e9niens), au 22 mars (Romains), et \u00e0 la veille du 30 Xanthikos (\u00c9ph\u00e8se).\r\n\r\nLa parenth\u00e8se sur les d\u00e9buts d\u2019ann\u00e9e, ouverte par Simplicius \u00e0 propos de l\u2019exemple du d\u00e9but du mois choisi par Aristote pour illustrer le concept de cons\u00e9cution temporelle, se referme sur trois acquis essentiels.\r\n\r\nElle constitue le plus ancien t\u00e9moignage connu sur les calendriers en usage chez les Greco-aram\u00e9ens de Harr\u00e2n. Elle permet d\u2019identifier, par leur origine historique et leur appartenance nationale, les calendriers fournis par al-Sarahs\u00ee, al-H\u00e0sim\u00ee et Wahb.\r\n\r\nElle confirme que c\u2019est bien l\u00e0, dans cette \u00abville b\u00e9nie, parce que jamais souill\u00e9e par l\u2019erreur de Nazareth\u00bb, que trouv\u00e8rent refuge les derniers Platoniciens apr\u00e8s 533.\r\n\r\nDans les calendriers de Wahb et d\u2019al-H\u00e2sim\u00ee, se c\u00f4toient p\u00eale-m\u00eale les noms de divinit\u00e9s babyloniennes, \u00e9gyptiennes, grecques, anatoliennes, syriennes et arabes. Un tel syncr\u00e9tisme ne pouvait que faire bon m\u00e9nage avec la religion de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie.\r\n\r\nSelon l\u2019objectif de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, en effet, le philosophe ne devait se contenter d\u2019\u00eatre le th\u00e9rapeute d\u2019une seule ville, ou celui des coutumes de quelques peuples. Il lui fallait aussi \u00eatre \u00abl\u2019hi\u00e9rophante du monde entier\u00bb.\r\n\r\nEn s\u2019installant \u00e0 Harr\u00e2n \u00e0 leur retour d\u2019Iran, les compagnons de Damascius avaient choisi l\u2019endroit id\u00e9al pour r\u00e9aliser un tel programme. [conclusion p. 55-57]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TgVuqJv1CIhi085","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":331,"full_name":"Tardieu, Michel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":475,"section_of":171,"pages":"40-57","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les calendriers en usage \u00e0 Harran d\u2019apr\u00e8s les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"]}

Les catégories aristotéliciennes d’action et de passion vues par Simplicius, 1980
By: Vamvoukakis, Nicolas, Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Les catégories aristotéliciennes d’action et de passion vues par Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1980
Published in Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique
Pages 253-269
Categories no categories
Author(s) Vamvoukakis, Nicolas
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)
L’analyse du commentaire de Simplicius sur les catégories aristotéliciennes d’action et de passion (ou, plus exactement, d’«agir» et de «pâtir») est d’un intérêt multiple. Les notions mêmes sont d’une importance capitale aussi bien pour Aristote que pour le néoplatonisme tardif : en tant que catégories, elles désignent la mobilité, le dynamisme et la créativité de l’être ; en tant que réalités physiques ou métaphysiques désignées par ces mots, l’action et la passion sont directement liées à la théorie aristotélicienne de puissance, d’acte et de mouvement, et non moins à la problématique néoplatonicienne sur la Procession.

L’importance du sujet fait du commentaire de Simplicius une bonne occasion pour manifester l’utilité de ce genre de commentaires pour la meilleure compréhension de la pensée aristotélicienne ; et cela d’autant plus que Simplicius consacre aux catégories d’action et de passion quarante pages de commentaire alors que le texte aristotélicien dans le traité des Catégories ne dépasse pas huit lignes. Par l’exposé exhaustif et raisonné de tous les points de vue concernant ces deux catégories, Simplicius nous offre un tableau aussi complet que possible des problèmes sur l’action et la passion qu’Aristote aurait pu ou aurait dû se poser lui-même dans son discours sur les Catégories.

Ainsi l’examen portera sur les caractères principaux de l’action et de la passion, sur ce qui est le propre de chacune et justifie sa position comme une catégorie à part, sur le problème de la réductibilité de ces deux catégories aux autres ou à une seule et sur leur division en espèces. Toutes ces questions, prises dans leur généralité, sont indiscutablement conformes à l’esprit de l’auteur du traité des Catégories ; mais lorsqu’on aborde leur examen détaillé dans le commentaire de Simplicius, on est souvent étonné par l’intrusion d’éléments, surtout spéculatifs, qui, en apparence, relèvent d’un mode de pensée complètement étranger à celui d’Aristote.

Mais, en fait, une étude serrée du commentaire montre qu’il est possible (et même nécessaire, si l’on veut tirer le meilleur parti de ce texte) de distinguer :

    les éléments purement aristotéliciens ;
    ceux qui, exprimés en termes néoplatoniciens, sont aisément transposables dans l’univers d’Aristote ;
    ceux qui prolongent la problématique aristotélicienne dans la perspective du néoplatonisme tardif.

Ces prolongements ne sont pourtant pas dépourvus d’intérêt pour l’aristotélisme : en posant et en résolvant des problèmes qu’Aristote lui-même n’avait pas posés, mais qui, en dernière analyse, découlent de ses propres thèses, et auxquels on doit donc chercher une réponse même si Aristote ne l’a pas donnée, on comprend beaucoup plus à fond toutes les ramifications de sa problématique ; et de même par l’examen des réponses proposées ou en essayant de répondre soi-même à la place d’Aristote.

D’où il ressort que la bonne compréhension et l’appréciation juste d’un commentaire de Simplicius sur Aristote présupposent une connaissance adéquate de la philosophie aristotélicienne ainsi qu’une certaine expérience des traits particuliers à la pensée et à la sensibilité des néoplatoniciens tardifs. Car ces commentaires ne sont pas exégétiques au sens, malheureusement si familier pour nous, de la paraphrase élaborée, mais, sans négliger les nuances, s’attaquent au cœur même des problèmes, sur lesquels ils proposent des solutions bien articulées. [introduction p. 253-254]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"455","_score":null,"_source":{"id":455,"authors_free":[{"id":611,"entry_id":455,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":344,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","free_first_name":"Nicolas","free_last_name":"Vamvoukakis","norm_person":{"id":344,"first_name":"Nicolas","last_name":"Vamvoukakis","full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":612,"entry_id":455,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion vues par Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion vues par Simplicius"},"abstract":"L\u2019analyse du commentaire de Simplicius sur les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion (ou, plus exactement, d\u2019\u00abagir\u00bb et de \u00abp\u00e2tir\u00bb) est d\u2019un int\u00e9r\u00eat multiple. Les notions m\u00eames sont d\u2019une importance capitale aussi bien pour Aristote que pour le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif : en tant que cat\u00e9gories, elles d\u00e9signent la mobilit\u00e9, le dynamisme et la cr\u00e9ativit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00eatre ; en tant que r\u00e9alit\u00e9s physiques ou m\u00e9taphysiques d\u00e9sign\u00e9es par ces mots, l\u2019action et la passion sont directement li\u00e9es \u00e0 la th\u00e9orie aristot\u00e9licienne de puissance, d\u2019acte et de mouvement, et non moins \u00e0 la probl\u00e9matique n\u00e9oplatonicienne sur la Procession.\r\n\r\nL\u2019importance du sujet fait du commentaire de Simplicius une bonne occasion pour manifester l\u2019utilit\u00e9 de ce genre de commentaires pour la meilleure compr\u00e9hension de la pens\u00e9e aristot\u00e9licienne ; et cela d\u2019autant plus que Simplicius consacre aux cat\u00e9gories d\u2019action et de passion quarante pages de commentaire alors que le texte aristot\u00e9licien dans le trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories ne d\u00e9passe pas huit lignes. Par l\u2019expos\u00e9 exhaustif et raisonn\u00e9 de tous les points de vue concernant ces deux cat\u00e9gories, Simplicius nous offre un tableau aussi complet que possible des probl\u00e8mes sur l\u2019action et la passion qu\u2019Aristote aurait pu ou aurait d\u00fb se poser lui-m\u00eame dans son discours sur les Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nAinsi l\u2019examen portera sur les caract\u00e8res principaux de l\u2019action et de la passion, sur ce qui est le propre de chacune et justifie sa position comme une cat\u00e9gorie \u00e0 part, sur le probl\u00e8me de la r\u00e9ductibilit\u00e9 de ces deux cat\u00e9gories aux autres ou \u00e0 une seule et sur leur division en esp\u00e8ces. Toutes ces questions, prises dans leur g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9, sont indiscutablement conformes \u00e0 l\u2019esprit de l\u2019auteur du trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories ; mais lorsqu\u2019on aborde leur examen d\u00e9taill\u00e9 dans le commentaire de Simplicius, on est souvent \u00e9tonn\u00e9 par l\u2019intrusion d\u2019\u00e9l\u00e9ments, surtout sp\u00e9culatifs, qui, en apparence, rel\u00e8vent d\u2019un mode de pens\u00e9e compl\u00e8tement \u00e9tranger \u00e0 celui d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nMais, en fait, une \u00e9tude serr\u00e9e du commentaire montre qu\u2019il est possible (et m\u00eame n\u00e9cessaire, si l\u2019on veut tirer le meilleur parti de ce texte) de distinguer :\r\n\r\n les \u00e9l\u00e9ments purement aristot\u00e9liciens ;\r\n ceux qui, exprim\u00e9s en termes n\u00e9oplatoniciens, sont ais\u00e9ment transposables dans l\u2019univers d\u2019Aristote ;\r\n ceux qui prolongent la probl\u00e9matique aristot\u00e9licienne dans la perspective du n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif.\r\n\r\nCes prolongements ne sont pourtant pas d\u00e9pourvus d\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat pour l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme : en posant et en r\u00e9solvant des probl\u00e8mes qu\u2019Aristote lui-m\u00eame n\u2019avait pas pos\u00e9s, mais qui, en derni\u00e8re analyse, d\u00e9coulent de ses propres th\u00e8ses, et auxquels on doit donc chercher une r\u00e9ponse m\u00eame si Aristote ne l\u2019a pas donn\u00e9e, on comprend beaucoup plus \u00e0 fond toutes les ramifications de sa probl\u00e9matique ; et de m\u00eame par l\u2019examen des r\u00e9ponses propos\u00e9es ou en essayant de r\u00e9pondre soi-m\u00eame \u00e0 la place d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nD\u2019o\u00f9 il ressort que la bonne compr\u00e9hension et l\u2019appr\u00e9ciation juste d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur Aristote pr\u00e9supposent une connaissance ad\u00e9quate de la philosophie aristot\u00e9licienne ainsi qu\u2019une certaine exp\u00e9rience des traits particuliers \u00e0 la pens\u00e9e et \u00e0 la sensibilit\u00e9 des n\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs. Car ces commentaires ne sont pas ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques au sens, malheureusement si familier pour nous, de la paraphrase \u00e9labor\u00e9e, mais, sans n\u00e9gliger les nuances, s\u2019attaquent au c\u0153ur m\u00eame des probl\u00e8mes, sur lesquels ils proposent des solutions bien articul\u00e9es. [introduction p. 253-254]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O07AYBHdocDRTVL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":344,"full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":455,"section_of":302,"pages":"253-269","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion vues par Simplicius"]}

Les catégories ΠΟΙ et ΠΟΤΕ chez Aristote et Simplicius, 1980
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Les catégories ΠΟΙ et ΠΟΤΕ chez Aristote et Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1980
Published in Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique
Pages 217-245
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)
L'exposé que l'on va lire ne se propose pas d'étudier les concepts de lieu ou de temps chez Aristote et son commentateur Simplicius, mais de scruter les quelques indications qu’Aristote, dans son Traité des Catégories, nous donne sur les prédicats ποῦ et ποτέ, ou que l'on peut trouver dans certains passages de Physique IV. La matière fournie par les textes aristotéliciens étant peu abondante, notre attention se portera principalement sur le Commentaire de Simplicius.

Si les catégories ποῦ et ποτέ ne se confondent pas avec les concepts de lieu et de temps, c’est pourtant par rapport à eux, c'est-à-dire par différence avec eux, qu'elles prennent sens et consistance. C'est pourquoi, et bien que ce ne soit qu’à titre secondaire, la méditation sur le temps et le lieu nourrit le commentaire de Simplicius, chez qui elle fonde (ainsi d’ailleurs que chez nombre de commentateurs antérieurs) l'ordre relatif des deux catégories : selon que le temps ou le lieu est considéré comme plus « proche » de l'essence, plus « apparenté » à elle, la catégorie ποῦ (ou la catégorie ποτέ) se situera plus près de l’ousia dans la liste des catégories.

Tel étant le critère du classement, l'analyse catégoriale court toujours le risque d’être remplacée par une étude « physique » du temps ou du lieu. Mais Simplicius situe la doctrine des catégories au niveau d’une étude des signifiés et des significations. Un second danger se présente alors, qui est de confondre l'analyse catégoriale et l'analyse grammaticale des « parties du discours ». En effet, les catégories ποῦ et ποτέ correspondent presque exclusivement à deux classes d’adverbes, qui sont, respectivement, les adverbes de lieu et les adverbes de temps.

Nous verrons que Simplicius, analysant et classant les significations des adverbes (et compléments) de lieu, ne fait que reprendre, sur ce point, la doctrine grammaticale classique, telle qu'on la voit exposée dans la Grammaire de Denys le Thrace, dans les scholies relatives à cette grammaire, ou chez un auteur comme Apollonius Dyscole. Guidé par l'idée d’une étroite parenté entre les catégories ποῦ et ποτέ, Simplicius étudie les adverbes de temps en suivant comme modèle la doctrine grammaticale des adverbes de lieu.

À la suite de Jamblique, il défend, contre les attaques de Plotin, la thèse soutenue par Aristote dans son Traité des Catégories : ποτέ et ποῦ sont des catégories distinctes et propres, tandis que temps et lieu relèvent de la quantité. Pour fonder cette distinction, Jamblique et Simplicius établissent que ποῦ signifie « la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu », et ποτέ « la relation au temps de ce qui est dans le temps ».

D'autre part, ποῦ et ποτέ se différencient des relatifs, en ce que la relation constitutive de ces derniers est convertible, ce qui n’est pas le cas de la relation constitutive de ces deux catégories : il s'agit, par exemple, de la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu, et non de la relation du lieu à ce qui est en lui. [introduction p.  217-218]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"508","_score":null,"_source":{"id":508,"authors_free":[{"id":702,"entry_id":508,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":703,"entry_id":508,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les cat\u00e9gories \u03a0\u039f\u0399 et \u03a0\u039f\u03a4\u0395 chez Aristote et Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Les cat\u00e9gories \u03a0\u039f\u0399 et \u03a0\u039f\u03a4\u0395 chez Aristote et Simplicius"},"abstract":"L'expos\u00e9 que l'on va lire ne se propose pas d'\u00e9tudier les concepts de lieu ou de temps chez Aristote et son commentateur Simplicius, mais de scruter les quelques indications qu\u2019Aristote, dans son Trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories, nous donne sur les pr\u00e9dicats \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad, ou que l'on peut trouver dans certains passages de Physique IV. La mati\u00e8re fournie par les textes aristot\u00e9liciens \u00e9tant peu abondante, notre attention se portera principalement sur le Commentaire de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nSi les cat\u00e9gories \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad ne se confondent pas avec les concepts de lieu et de temps, c\u2019est pourtant par rapport \u00e0 eux, c'est-\u00e0-dire par diff\u00e9rence avec eux, qu'elles prennent sens et consistance. C'est pourquoi, et bien que ce ne soit qu\u2019\u00e0 titre secondaire, la m\u00e9ditation sur le temps et le lieu nourrit le commentaire de Simplicius, chez qui elle fonde (ainsi d\u2019ailleurs que chez nombre de commentateurs ant\u00e9rieurs) l'ordre relatif des deux cat\u00e9gories : selon que le temps ou le lieu est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme plus \u00ab proche \u00bb de l'essence, plus \u00ab apparent\u00e9 \u00bb \u00e0 elle, la cat\u00e9gorie \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 (ou la cat\u00e9gorie \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad) se situera plus pr\u00e8s de l\u2019ousia dans la liste des cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nTel \u00e9tant le crit\u00e8re du classement, l'analyse cat\u00e9goriale court toujours le risque d\u2019\u00eatre remplac\u00e9e par une \u00e9tude \u00ab physique \u00bb du temps ou du lieu. Mais Simplicius situe la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories au niveau d\u2019une \u00e9tude des signifi\u00e9s et des significations. Un second danger se pr\u00e9sente alors, qui est de confondre l'analyse cat\u00e9goriale et l'analyse grammaticale des \u00ab parties du discours \u00bb. En effet, les cat\u00e9gories \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad correspondent presque exclusivement \u00e0 deux classes d\u2019adverbes, qui sont, respectivement, les adverbes de lieu et les adverbes de temps.\r\n\r\nNous verrons que Simplicius, analysant et classant les significations des adverbes (et compl\u00e9ments) de lieu, ne fait que reprendre, sur ce point, la doctrine grammaticale classique, telle qu'on la voit expos\u00e9e dans la Grammaire de Denys le Thrace, dans les scholies relatives \u00e0 cette grammaire, ou chez un auteur comme Apollonius Dyscole. Guid\u00e9 par l'id\u00e9e d\u2019une \u00e9troite parent\u00e9 entre les cat\u00e9gories \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad, Simplicius \u00e9tudie les adverbes de temps en suivant comme mod\u00e8le la doctrine grammaticale des adverbes de lieu.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 la suite de Jamblique, il d\u00e9fend, contre les attaques de Plotin, la th\u00e8se soutenue par Aristote dans son Trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories : \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad et \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 sont des cat\u00e9gories distinctes et propres, tandis que temps et lieu rel\u00e8vent de la quantit\u00e9. Pour fonder cette distinction, Jamblique et Simplicius \u00e9tablissent que \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 signifie \u00ab la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu \u00bb, et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad \u00ab la relation au temps de ce qui est dans le temps \u00bb.\r\n\r\nD'autre part, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad se diff\u00e9rencient des relatifs, en ce que la relation constitutive de ces derniers est convertible, ce qui n\u2019est pas le cas de la relation constitutive de ces deux cat\u00e9gories : il s'agit, par exemple, de la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu, et non de la relation du lieu \u00e0 ce qui est en lui. [introduction p. 217-218]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NQv0lwgedEPlhBo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":508,"section_of":302,"pages":"217-245","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les cat\u00e9gories \u03a0\u039f\u0399 et \u03a0\u039f\u03a4\u0395 chez Aristote et Simplicius"]}

Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diogène et la reconstruction de l’argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24), 1983
By: Laks, André
Title Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diogène et la reconstruction de l’argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24)
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1983
Published in Diogène d’Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et témoignages
Pages 37-53
Categories no categories
Author(s) Laks, André
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The article discusses the circumstances of the transmission of the fragments of Diogenes and the reconstruction of his argument by Simplicius in his Commentary on Physics. It highlights the significance of Simplicius' work in shedding light on the ancient philosopher, and explains how Simplicius came to cite Diogenes verbatim. The article also explores the issue of intermediaries in the texts and the difficulties in their construction. The study is important in understanding the history of philosophy and the transmission of ancient texts. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1188","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1188,"authors_free":[{"id":1760,"entry_id":1188,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne et la reconstruction de l\u2019argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24)","main_title":{"title":"Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne et la reconstruction de l\u2019argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24)"},"abstract":"The article discusses the circumstances of the transmission of the fragments of Diogenes and the reconstruction of his argument by Simplicius in his Commentary on Physics. It highlights the significance of Simplicius' work in shedding light on the ancient philosopher, and explains how Simplicius came to cite Diogenes verbatim. The article also explores the issue of intermediaries in the texts and the difficulties in their construction. The study is important in understanding the history of philosophy and the transmission of ancient texts. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1983","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NoBGGFCfD4qd7PP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1188,"section_of":1367,"pages":"37-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1367,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Diog\u00e8ne d\u2019Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et t\u00e9moignages","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Laks2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Depuis la premi\u00e8re \u00e9dition de ce livre, Diog\u00e8ne d'Apollonie, un des derniers \"physiciens\" pr\u00e9socratiques, longtemps d\u00e9valoris\u00e9 par la r\u00e9putation d' \"\u00e9clectique\" que H. Diels avait attach\u00e9e \u00e0 son nom dans un article de 1881, a suscit\u00e9 un regain d'int\u00e9r\u00eat.\r\n\r\nCette seconde \u00e9dition d'un ouvrage qui reste \u00e0 ce jour le seul commentaire exhaustif des fragments et des t\u00e9moignages de Diog\u00e8ne, a \u00e9t\u00e9 revue et corrig\u00e9e, mais elle prend aussi en compte, dans une s\u00e9rie d'ajouts marqu\u00e9s comme tels, les travaux parus au cours des vint-cinq ann\u00e9es \u00e9coul\u00e9es. Le livre retrace l'histoire de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne, analyse les positions de la critique moderne depuis l'article s\u00e9minal de F. Schleiermacher (1811), et offre, pour chacun des douze fragments et des quelques trente-six t\u00e9moignages, dont un nouveau classement est propos\u00e9, une analyse visant \u00e0 reconstruire la logique de l'original perdu.\r\n\r\nQuatre des Notes additionnelles abordent des probl\u00e8mes sp\u00e9cifiques, qui requ\u00e9raient un traitement s\u00e9par\u00e9. Une cinqui\u00e8me, en anglais, offre une pr\u00e9sentation synth\u00e9tique de l'interpr\u00e9tation ici d\u00e9fendue, qui situe l'importance de Diog\u00e8ne dans son rapport \u00e0 Anaxagore et \u00e0 sa doctrine de l' \"intellect\". [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WWBP0kG5a0nZ1I3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1367,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"International Pre-Platonic Studies","volume":"6","edition_no":"2 (1st 1983)","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne et la reconstruction de l\u2019argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24)"]}

Les commentaires et la naissance de la critique littéraire, France/Italie (XIVe-XVIe siècles). Actes du Colloque international sur le Commentaire, Paris, mai 1988 , 1990
By: Mathieu-Castellani, Gisèle (Ed.), Plaisance, Michel (Ed.)
Title Les commentaires et la naissance de la critique littéraire, France/Italie (XIVe-XVIe siècles). Actes du Colloque international sur le Commentaire, Paris, mai 1988
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1990
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Aux Amateurs de Livres
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Mathieu-Castellani, Gisèle , Plaisance, Michel
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"160","_score":null,"_source":{"id":160,"authors_free":[{"id":2530,"entry_id":160,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mathieu-Castellani, Gis\u00e8le","free_first_name":"Gis\u00e8le","free_last_name":"Mathieu-Castellani","norm_person":null},{"id":2531,"entry_id":160,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Plaisance, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Plaisance","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Les commentaires et la naissance de la critique litt\u00e9raire, France\/Italie (XIVe-XVIe si\u00e8cles). Actes du Colloque international sur le Commentaire, Paris, mai 1988 ","main_title":{"title":"Les commentaires et la naissance de la critique litt\u00e9raire, France\/Italie (XIVe-XVIe si\u00e8cles). Actes du Colloque international sur le Commentaire, Paris, mai 1988 "},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GsDNaQjZ5QxBaVr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":160,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Aux Amateurs de Livres","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Les commentaires et la naissance de la critique litt\u00e9raire, France\/Italie (XIVe-XVIe si\u00e8cles). Actes du Colloque international sur le Commentaire, Paris, mai 1988 "]}

Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens, 1990
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1990
Published in Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Traduction commentée sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Première partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)
Pages 21-47
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
The text discusses the introductions to exegetical commentaries by Neoplatonic and Christian authors, using Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories as an example. It is divided into two parts: the first provides the historical context, sources and method, and the second develops the two traditional outlines used in the introduction of commentaries on the Categories. These two outlines are found in the commentaries of the four other Neoplatonic authors who commented on the Categories, namely Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore and David, and also in the Arabic introductions of Al-Farabi and Al-Kindi. The text offers a comparative study of the commentaries and the introductions, highlighting the differences in structure and form. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1182","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1182,"authors_free":[{"id":1755,"entry_id":1182,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1974,"entry_id":1182,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les introductions aux commentaires ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques chez les auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens et les auteurs chr\u00e9tiens","main_title":{"title":"Les introductions aux commentaires ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques chez les auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens et les auteurs chr\u00e9tiens"},"abstract":"The text discusses the introductions to exegetical commentaries by Neoplatonic and Christian authors, using Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories as an example. It is divided into two parts: the first provides the historical context, sources and method, and the second develops the two traditional outlines used in the introduction of commentaries on the Categories. These two outlines are found in the commentaries of the four other Neoplatonic authors who commented on the Categories, namely Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore and David, and also in the Arabic introductions of Al-Farabi and Al-Kindi. The text offers a comparative study of the commentaries and the introductions, highlighting the differences in structure and form. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2ecCQO0VOCCVgZa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1182,"section_of":179,"pages":"21-47","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":179,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Premi\u00e8re partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1990e","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The French translation with commentary, the first in a modern language, allows historians of philosophy access to a fundamental work for the understanding of medieval and modern thought. They could also explore more easily the great variety of information contained in the commentary of Simplicius on the history of the exegis of the Cat\u00e9gories of Aristotle, and more generally on the history of comparative philosophy of Simplicius. They will discover some important aspects in the actual thought of Simplicius, which so far has hardly been explored. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KyrBWf80BsqVFO8","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":179,"pubplace":"Leiden - New York - K\u00f8benhavn - K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua. A Series of studies on ancient Philosophy","volume":"50.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les introductions aux commentaires ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques chez les auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens et les auteurs chr\u00e9tiens"]}

Les paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore à Simplicius, 1990
By: Tardieu, Michel
Title Les paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore à Simplicius
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1990
Publication Place Louvain
Publisher Peeters
Series Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des hautes études. Section des sciences religieuses
Volume 94
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tardieu, Michel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"197","_score":null,"_source":{"id":197,"authors_free":[{"id":254,"entry_id":197,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":331,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tardieu, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Tardieu","norm_person":{"id":331,"first_name":"Michel","last_name":"Tardieu","full_name":"Tardieu, Michel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140490701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Les paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AaZIIzIDKTRzpaF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":331,"full_name":"Tardieu, Michel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":197,"pubplace":"Louvain","publisher":"Peeters","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que de l'Ecole des hautes \u00e9tudes. Section des sciences religieuses","volume":"94","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Les paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius"]}

Les présocratiques et la question de l'infini, 1981
By: Frère, Jean
Title Les présocratiques et la question de l'infini
Type Article
Language French
Date 1981
Journal Les Études philosophiques
Volume 1
Pages 19-33
Categories no categories
Author(s) Frère, Jean
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Bien avant la philosophie de Platon et celle d'Aristote, la pensée grecque a rencontré la question du rapport entre l'infini (apeiros) et la perfection. Mais, pour aborder ce que les Grecs veulent nommer par le « non-limité », il convient de partir du débat que les linguistes ont engagé autour du terme. Plusieurs interprétations sémantiques sont envisagées dans le rapport entre apeiros et peirar/peras. Dans une première solution, le préfixe négatif a- se combine avec peras ; dans une seconde, le a- privatif porte sur la racine per (perô, peirô, perainô), qui signifie passage et traversée. En ce qui concerne peras, les linguistes sont de nouveau partagés entre « limite, bout, extrémité » ou « lien ».

Pour ce qui est de la langue grecque, non encore conceptualisée par la démarche philosophique, ce que « illimité » peut véhiculer de non clair pour la raison ou de non rassurant pour le sentiment ne comporte pourtant aucune dimension de cette angoisse et de ce vertige que retiendra Pascal. Lorsque Homère ou Hésiode parlent de la « terre sans limite », lorsque Pindare chante la « renommée infinie » du héros, l’adjectif apeirôn se relie généralement à l’éloge de qualités concernant choses ou hommes. Il y a aussi l’idée de profondeur sans fin (le sommeil, hypnos, Odyssée VII, 286) ou d’ampleur (une foule d’hommes, Iliade XXIV, 776). C’est moins son aspect infini que son pouvoir d’engloutir qui fait caractériser comme terrible la mer infinie. De même, l’adjectif apeirôn, infini, renvoie à l’immensité comme profusion et comme richesse, qu’il s’agisse du lieu, du temps ou du nombre.

Avec les présocratiques, apeiros/to apeiron s’installent dans la pensée philosophique. À travers des textes fragmentaires, il est difficile de savoir avec certitude la conception de l’infini (apeiron) que les présocratiques, de Thalès à Anaxagore et aux sophistes, avaient pu élaborer. Néanmoins, le problème de apeiron n’a pas été sans importance pour eux. Que l’un d’eux, Anaximandre, ait fait de l’apeiron l’archê de l’univers en est la marque. Et Mélissos caractérise le principe (archê) comme infini (apeiron). L’apeiron n’est donc point pour les présocratiques uniquement lié à l’imperfection que sera l’apeiron du Philebe.

Il y a dans la pensée grecque des premiers temps comme un pressentiment de la richesse de l’infini, aussi bien qu’il désigne une absence de limite où la raison se perd. L’apeiron renvoie surtout à la spatialité, se lie à la grandeur (megethos), comme l’éternité (to aidion) se lie au temps. Dans les philosophies où la nature (physis) est aux confins du divin et du matériel, le principe, le tout, les mondes sont caractérisés d’abord par l’infini de grandeur, l’illimité. Mais l’infini est aussi envisagé comme indéfini qualitatif.

Toutefois, face à l’infini qui est déterminé par sa richesse, certains présocratiques ont envisagé aussi l’infini qui est pure indétermination, degré incomplet de l’Être et forme du moindre Être. On trouve ici l’esquisse des conceptions philosophiques qui vont se préciser dans les théories plus élaborées de Platon et d’Aristote. [introduction p. 19-20]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"745","_score":null,"_source":{"id":745,"authors_free":[{"id":1108,"entry_id":745,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":101,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fr\u00e8re, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"Fr\u00e8re","norm_person":{"id":101,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"Fr\u00e8re","full_name":"Fr\u00e8re, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130051187","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les pr\u00e9socratiques et la question de l'infini","main_title":{"title":"Les pr\u00e9socratiques et la question de l'infini"},"abstract":"Bien avant la philosophie de Platon et celle d'Aristote, la pens\u00e9e grecque a rencontr\u00e9 la question du rapport entre l'infini (apeiros) et la perfection. Mais, pour aborder ce que les Grecs veulent nommer par le \u00ab non-limit\u00e9 \u00bb, il convient de partir du d\u00e9bat que les linguistes ont engag\u00e9 autour du terme. Plusieurs interpr\u00e9tations s\u00e9mantiques sont envisag\u00e9es dans le rapport entre apeiros et peirar\/peras. Dans une premi\u00e8re solution, le pr\u00e9fixe n\u00e9gatif a- se combine avec peras ; dans une seconde, le a- privatif porte sur la racine per (per\u00f4, peir\u00f4, perain\u00f4), qui signifie passage et travers\u00e9e. En ce qui concerne peras, les linguistes sont de nouveau partag\u00e9s entre \u00ab limite, bout, extr\u00e9mit\u00e9 \u00bb ou \u00ab lien \u00bb.\r\n\r\nPour ce qui est de la langue grecque, non encore conceptualis\u00e9e par la d\u00e9marche philosophique, ce que \u00ab illimit\u00e9 \u00bb peut v\u00e9hiculer de non clair pour la raison ou de non rassurant pour le sentiment ne comporte pourtant aucune dimension de cette angoisse et de ce vertige que retiendra Pascal. Lorsque Hom\u00e8re ou H\u00e9siode parlent de la \u00ab terre sans limite \u00bb, lorsque Pindare chante la \u00ab renomm\u00e9e infinie \u00bb du h\u00e9ros, l\u2019adjectif apeir\u00f4n se relie g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9loge de qualit\u00e9s concernant choses ou hommes. Il y a aussi l\u2019id\u00e9e de profondeur sans fin (le sommeil, hypnos, Odyss\u00e9e VII, 286) ou d\u2019ampleur (une foule d\u2019hommes, Iliade XXIV, 776). C\u2019est moins son aspect infini que son pouvoir d\u2019engloutir qui fait caract\u00e9riser comme terrible la mer infinie. De m\u00eame, l\u2019adjectif apeir\u00f4n, infini, renvoie \u00e0 l\u2019immensit\u00e9 comme profusion et comme richesse, qu\u2019il s\u2019agisse du lieu, du temps ou du nombre.\r\n\r\nAvec les pr\u00e9socratiques, apeiros\/to apeiron s\u2019installent dans la pens\u00e9e philosophique. \u00c0 travers des textes fragmentaires, il est difficile de savoir avec certitude la conception de l\u2019infini (apeiron) que les pr\u00e9socratiques, de Thal\u00e8s \u00e0 Anaxagore et aux sophistes, avaient pu \u00e9laborer. N\u00e9anmoins, le probl\u00e8me de apeiron n\u2019a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 sans importance pour eux. Que l\u2019un d\u2019eux, Anaximandre, ait fait de l\u2019apeiron l\u2019arch\u00ea de l\u2019univers en est la marque. Et M\u00e9lissos caract\u00e9rise le principe (arch\u00ea) comme infini (apeiron). L\u2019apeiron n\u2019est donc point pour les pr\u00e9socratiques uniquement li\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019imperfection que sera l\u2019apeiron du Philebe.\r\n\r\nIl y a dans la pens\u00e9e grecque des premiers temps comme un pressentiment de la richesse de l\u2019infini, aussi bien qu\u2019il d\u00e9signe une absence de limite o\u00f9 la raison se perd. L\u2019apeiron renvoie surtout \u00e0 la spatialit\u00e9, se lie \u00e0 la grandeur (megethos), comme l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 (to aidion) se lie au temps. Dans les philosophies o\u00f9 la nature (physis) est aux confins du divin et du mat\u00e9riel, le principe, le tout, les mondes sont caract\u00e9ris\u00e9s d\u2019abord par l\u2019infini de grandeur, l\u2019illimit\u00e9. Mais l\u2019infini est aussi envisag\u00e9 comme ind\u00e9fini qualitatif.\r\n\r\nToutefois, face \u00e0 l\u2019infini qui est d\u00e9termin\u00e9 par sa richesse, certains pr\u00e9socratiques ont envisag\u00e9 aussi l\u2019infini qui est pure ind\u00e9termination, degr\u00e9 incomplet de l\u2019\u00catre et forme du moindre \u00catre. On trouve ici l\u2019esquisse des conceptions philosophiques qui vont se pr\u00e9ciser dans les th\u00e9ories plus \u00e9labor\u00e9es de Platon et d\u2019Aristote. [introduction p. 19-20]","btype":3,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TpFRmhxNzvv4XUL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":101,"full_name":"Fr\u00e8re, Jean","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":745,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"19-33"}},"sort":["Les pr\u00e9socratiques et la question de l'infini"]}

Les sources gréco-arabes de la théorie médiévale de l'analogie de l'être, 1989
By: de Libera, Alain
Title Les sources gréco-arabes de la théorie médiévale de l'analogie de l'être
Type Article
Language French
Date 1989
Journal Les Études philosophiques
Volume 3
Issue 4
Pages 319-345
Categories no categories
Author(s) de Libera, Alain
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
C'est ici le lieu de revenir sur le concept de denominatio. Dans les versions latines d'Aristote, le mot denominativa désigne, on l'a dit, les « paronymes », c'est-à-dire ces « réalités qui, tout en différant d'une autre (réalité) par la désinence de leur nom, ont une appellation conforme au nom (de cette autre réalité) ».

Chez Maître Eckhart, la notion de « prédication dénominative », empruntée à la Logica d'Avicenne (chap. 3, Venise, 1508, fol. 3 vb), rejoint la notion boécienne de praedicatio des accidentia secundum rem (De Trinitate, chap. 4), exprimant un aspect de la déficience ontologique constitutive de l’étant créé comme tel. Pour lui, dire que « les neuf catégories sont prédiquées dénominativement de la substance » (novem praedicamenta accidentium praedicantur denominative de substantia) signifie que tout étant créé est un dénominatif, c'est-à-dire un étant-ceci ou cela (ens hoc et hoc), et qu'aucun étant-ceci n'est en tant que ceci : tout « ceci » ajouté à la substance est l'expression de la défaillance (casus, πτῶσις) qui accidente le créé.

C'est dans cette tradition complexe, à la fois liée à la théorie averroïste de l'accident et aux théories avicennienne (ontologique) et boécienne (théologique) de la prédication—et non à la théorie de l’analogie selon Simplicius—que se situe le célèbre passage d’In Exodum, où le Thuringien expose sa théorie des catégories, qu'on peut résumer ainsi :

    Les dix catégories ne sont pas les dix premiers étants (decem prima entia), mais les dix genres premiers des étants (decem prima entium genera).
    Il n'y a qu'un étant, la substance ; les autres réalités ne sont pas « étant » (ens), mais « de ou à l’étant » (entis), c’est-à-dire « étant seulement par analogie au seul étant au sens absolu, la substance, comme en témoigne la Métaphysique, livre VII ».
    Les neuf prédicaments de l’accident ne sont donc pas des étants « au cas régime » (entia in recto), mais des étants au « cas oblique » (in obliquo).
    C'est en ce sens « oblique » que l’urine est dite « saine », non par la santé « formellement inhérente », « mais seulement par analogie et renvoi extrinsèque à la santé elle-même, qui au sens propre et formel se trouve seulement dans l’animal » (non sanitate formaliter inhaerente, sed sola analogia et respectu ad ipsam sanitatem extra, quae proprie formaliter est in ipso animali).
    C’est également en ce sens que le vin est dit « être dans l’enseigne », signifiant qu’il se trouve dans la taverne et la bouteille.

Telle est donc la théorie dont Nicolas prétend trouver les contours généraux, ou plus exactement l’instrumentation conceptuelle, chez Simplicius. Certes, il n'en laisse pas l’application métaphysique au commentateur lui-même—ce en quoi il a raison—mais il a tort lorsqu'il lui prête une formulation de l’analogia attributionis, qu'il ne pouvait lire que chez Dietrich de Freiberg et Eckhart.

On peut spéculer à loisir sur une telle absence d'acribie. Mais n'est-ce pas Albert le Grand lui-même qui en inaugure le principe lorsque, dans sa dernière œuvre, la Summa theologiae, il prête à Proclus une distinction entre quatre types de « prédication commune » : une selon l’univocité stricte, trois selon l’analogie—un véritable montage qui, à partir de certaines expressions de Proclus sur le caractère salvifique du bien (« le bien est ce qui sauve tous les êtres et devient ainsi le terme de leur tendance »), lui permet de retrouver en fait l’interprétation averroïste de la triade porphyrienne des homonymes κατὰ διάνοιαν.

Plutôt que d’incriminer les légèretés ou les insuffisances de la doxographie médiévale, nous préférons voir là le témoignage de la puissance d'assimilation et de la productivité de la grille de lecture originairement imposée par Porphyre aux textes d’Aristote.

L’histoire des sources gréco-arabes de la théorie médiévale de l’analogie est celle d’un invariant structurel grec et de ses remplissements arabes, qui, pour finir, retrouve d’autres Grecs traduits par Guillaume de Moerbeke. C’est l’histoire d’une dérive péripatéticienne de l’aristotélisme qui commence chez Porphyre et s’achève dans le néoplatonisme. La production médiévale de l’analogie n’est pas seulement une « replatonisation » d’Aristote, c’est aussi la marque de l’affinité structurelle qui lie entre elles toutes les formes de néoplatonisme. Plus décisif encore, elle procède moins d’un rapprochement des πρός ἕν λεγόμενα avec les synonymes que d’une substitution des πρός ἕν λεγόμενα aux paronymes.

Reconduite à ses sources gréco-arabes, l’analogie apparaît ainsi avant tout comme la théorie d’une transsumption catégorielle archi-fondatrice : celle qui articule toute pensée du rapport entre la substance et l’accident. [conclusion p. 343-345]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1296","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1296,"authors_free":[{"id":1889,"entry_id":1296,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":85,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"de Libera, Alain ","free_first_name":"Alain","free_last_name":"de Libera ","norm_person":{"id":85,"first_name":"Alain","last_name":"De Libera","full_name":"De Libera, Alain","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130219002","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les sources gr\u00e9co-arabes de la th\u00e9orie m\u00e9di\u00e9vale de l'analogie de l'\u00eatre","main_title":{"title":"Les sources gr\u00e9co-arabes de la th\u00e9orie m\u00e9di\u00e9vale de l'analogie de l'\u00eatre"},"abstract":"C'est ici le lieu de revenir sur le concept de denominatio. Dans les versions latines d'Aristote, le mot denominativa d\u00e9signe, on l'a dit, les \u00ab paronymes \u00bb, c'est-\u00e0-dire ces \u00ab r\u00e9alit\u00e9s qui, tout en diff\u00e9rant d'une autre (r\u00e9alit\u00e9) par la d\u00e9sinence de leur nom, ont une appellation conforme au nom (de cette autre r\u00e9alit\u00e9) \u00bb.\r\n\r\nChez Ma\u00eetre Eckhart, la notion de \u00ab pr\u00e9dication d\u00e9nominative \u00bb, emprunt\u00e9e \u00e0 la Logica d'Avicenne (chap. 3, Venise, 1508, fol. 3 vb), rejoint la notion bo\u00e9cienne de praedicatio des accidentia secundum rem (De Trinitate, chap. 4), exprimant un aspect de la d\u00e9ficience ontologique constitutive de l\u2019\u00e9tant cr\u00e9\u00e9 comme tel. Pour lui, dire que \u00ab les neuf cat\u00e9gories sont pr\u00e9diqu\u00e9es d\u00e9nominativement de la substance \u00bb (novem praedicamenta accidentium praedicantur denominative de substantia) signifie que tout \u00e9tant cr\u00e9\u00e9 est un d\u00e9nominatif, c'est-\u00e0-dire un \u00e9tant-ceci ou cela (ens hoc et hoc), et qu'aucun \u00e9tant-ceci n'est en tant que ceci : tout \u00ab ceci \u00bb ajout\u00e9 \u00e0 la substance est l'expression de la d\u00e9faillance (casus, \u03c0\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) qui accidente le cr\u00e9\u00e9.\r\n\r\nC'est dans cette tradition complexe, \u00e0 la fois li\u00e9e \u00e0 la th\u00e9orie averro\u00efste de l'accident et aux th\u00e9ories avicennienne (ontologique) et bo\u00e9cienne (th\u00e9ologique) de la pr\u00e9dication\u2014et non \u00e0 la th\u00e9orie de l\u2019analogie selon Simplicius\u2014que se situe le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre passage d\u2019In Exodum, o\u00f9 le Thuringien expose sa th\u00e9orie des cat\u00e9gories, qu'on peut r\u00e9sumer ainsi :\r\n\r\n Les dix cat\u00e9gories ne sont pas les dix premiers \u00e9tants (decem prima entia), mais les dix genres premiers des \u00e9tants (decem prima entium genera).\r\n Il n'y a qu'un \u00e9tant, la substance ; les autres r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ne sont pas \u00ab \u00e9tant \u00bb (ens), mais \u00ab de ou \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tant \u00bb (entis), c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire \u00ab \u00e9tant seulement par analogie au seul \u00e9tant au sens absolu, la substance, comme en t\u00e9moigne la M\u00e9taphysique, livre VII \u00bb.\r\n Les neuf pr\u00e9dicaments de l\u2019accident ne sont donc pas des \u00e9tants \u00ab au cas r\u00e9gime \u00bb (entia in recto), mais des \u00e9tants au \u00ab cas oblique \u00bb (in obliquo).\r\n C'est en ce sens \u00ab oblique \u00bb que l\u2019urine est dite \u00ab saine \u00bb, non par la sant\u00e9 \u00ab formellement inh\u00e9rente \u00bb, \u00ab mais seulement par analogie et renvoi extrins\u00e8que \u00e0 la sant\u00e9 elle-m\u00eame, qui au sens propre et formel se trouve seulement dans l\u2019animal \u00bb (non sanitate formaliter inhaerente, sed sola analogia et respectu ad ipsam sanitatem extra, quae proprie formaliter est in ipso animali).\r\n C\u2019est \u00e9galement en ce sens que le vin est dit \u00ab \u00eatre dans l\u2019enseigne \u00bb, signifiant qu\u2019il se trouve dans la taverne et la bouteille.\r\n\r\nTelle est donc la th\u00e9orie dont Nicolas pr\u00e9tend trouver les contours g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, ou plus exactement l\u2019instrumentation conceptuelle, chez Simplicius. Certes, il n'en laisse pas l\u2019application m\u00e9taphysique au commentateur lui-m\u00eame\u2014ce en quoi il a raison\u2014mais il a tort lorsqu'il lui pr\u00eate une formulation de l\u2019analogia attributionis, qu'il ne pouvait lire que chez Dietrich de Freiberg et Eckhart.\r\n\r\nOn peut sp\u00e9culer \u00e0 loisir sur une telle absence d'acribie. Mais n'est-ce pas Albert le Grand lui-m\u00eame qui en inaugure le principe lorsque, dans sa derni\u00e8re \u0153uvre, la Summa theologiae, il pr\u00eate \u00e0 Proclus une distinction entre quatre types de \u00ab pr\u00e9dication commune \u00bb : une selon l\u2019univocit\u00e9 stricte, trois selon l\u2019analogie\u2014un v\u00e9ritable montage qui, \u00e0 partir de certaines expressions de Proclus sur le caract\u00e8re salvifique du bien (\u00ab le bien est ce qui sauve tous les \u00eatres et devient ainsi le terme de leur tendance \u00bb), lui permet de retrouver en fait l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation averro\u00efste de la triade porphyrienne des homonymes \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.\r\n\r\nPlut\u00f4t que d\u2019incriminer les l\u00e9g\u00e8ret\u00e9s ou les insuffisances de la doxographie m\u00e9di\u00e9vale, nous pr\u00e9f\u00e9rons voir l\u00e0 le t\u00e9moignage de la puissance d'assimilation et de la productivit\u00e9 de la grille de lecture originairement impos\u00e9e par Porphyre aux textes d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nL\u2019histoire des sources gr\u00e9co-arabes de la th\u00e9orie m\u00e9di\u00e9vale de l\u2019analogie est celle d\u2019un invariant structurel grec et de ses remplissements arabes, qui, pour finir, retrouve d\u2019autres Grecs traduits par Guillaume de Moerbeke. C\u2019est l\u2019histoire d\u2019une d\u00e9rive p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme qui commence chez Porphyre et s\u2019ach\u00e8ve dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme. La production m\u00e9di\u00e9vale de l\u2019analogie n\u2019est pas seulement une \u00ab replatonisation \u00bb d\u2019Aristote, c\u2019est aussi la marque de l\u2019affinit\u00e9 structurelle qui lie entre elles toutes les formes de n\u00e9oplatonisme. Plus d\u00e9cisif encore, elle proc\u00e8de moins d\u2019un rapprochement des \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 avec les synonymes que d\u2019une substitution des \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 aux paronymes.\r\n\r\nReconduite \u00e0 ses sources gr\u00e9co-arabes, l\u2019analogie appara\u00eet ainsi avant tout comme la th\u00e9orie d\u2019une transsumption cat\u00e9gorielle archi-fondatrice : celle qui articule toute pens\u00e9e du rapport entre la substance et l\u2019accident. [conclusion p. 343-345]","btype":3,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FAqS35nEd0udN0w","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":85,"full_name":"De Libera, Alain","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1296,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Les \u00c9tudes philosophiques","volume":"3","issue":"4","pages":"319-345"}},"sort":["Les sources gr\u00e9co-arabes de la th\u00e9orie m\u00e9di\u00e9vale de l'analogie de l'\u00eatre"]}

Les sources vénitiennes de l’édition aldine du Livre I du Commentaire de Simplicius sur la „Physique“ d’Aristote, 1985
By: Codero, Néstor-Luis
Title Les sources vénitiennes de l’édition aldine du Livre I du Commentaire de Simplicius sur la „Physique“ d’Aristote
Type Article
Language French
Date 1985
Journal Scriptorium
Volume 39
Issue 1
Pages 70–88
Categories no categories
Author(s) Codero, Néstor-Luis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Nous pouvons revenir maintenant à notre point de départ : qui a été le responsable de l'édition de 1526 ? Aucun des éléments nouveaux ne s'oppose à notre hypothèse initiale : l'édition est due aux soins de Francesco d'Asola, responsable de la plupart des titres publiés « ex aedibus Aldi » depuis 1518.

Nous avons vu qu'il était le destinataire des manuscrits d'Aetius empruntés par Marcantonio Contarini à la Marciana, et nous avons supposé que le même procédé s'était appliqué aux deux textes de Simplicius édités en 1526.

Nous conservons une image très floue de ce personnage, dont le nom complet était Gian Francesco Torresani d'Asola. Il était le beau-frère d'Alde Manuce ; son père, Andrea d'Asola, fut le responsable de l'imprimerie depuis la mort d'Alde (1514) jusqu'à 1529.

Selon Degli Agostini, Francesco d'Asola était le protégé du cardinal Hercule de Gonzague — auquel est dédiée l'édition de la Physique — et il avait repris avec succès l'héritage d'Alde. Pour J. B. Egnazio, d'Asola était un « jeune homme cultivé ayant les meilleures habitudes » et, en 1542, Pellicier le remercie de l'envoi à la bibliothèque de Fontainebleau de quatre-vingts manuscrits grecs et de quelques autres manuscrits latins.

Malgré sa gentillesse et ses « meilleures habitudes », il est évident que d'Asola n'adopte pas la devise d'Alde : « Non enim recipio emendaturum libros », car il a beaucoup amendé.

Diels avait raison lorsqu'il signalait que « Aldini exempli editor haud pauca novavit, infeliciter plurima ». [conclusion p. 86]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"604","_score":null,"_source":{"id":604,"authors_free":[{"id":855,"entry_id":604,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":54,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Codero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_last_name":"Codero","norm_person":{"id":54,"first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","last_name":"Cordero","full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055808973","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les sources v\u00e9nitiennes de l\u2019\u00e9dition aldine du Livre I du Commentaire de Simplicius sur la \u201ePhysique\u201c d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Les sources v\u00e9nitiennes de l\u2019\u00e9dition aldine du Livre I du Commentaire de Simplicius sur la \u201ePhysique\u201c d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Nous pouvons revenir maintenant \u00e0 notre point de d\u00e9part : qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 le responsable de l'\u00e9dition de 1526 ? Aucun des \u00e9l\u00e9ments nouveaux ne s'oppose \u00e0 notre hypoth\u00e8se initiale : l'\u00e9dition est due aux soins de Francesco d'Asola, responsable de la plupart des titres publi\u00e9s \u00ab ex aedibus Aldi \u00bb depuis 1518.\r\n\r\nNous avons vu qu'il \u00e9tait le destinataire des manuscrits d'Aetius emprunt\u00e9s par Marcantonio Contarini \u00e0 la Marciana, et nous avons suppos\u00e9 que le m\u00eame proc\u00e9d\u00e9 s'\u00e9tait appliqu\u00e9 aux deux textes de Simplicius \u00e9dit\u00e9s en 1526.\r\n\r\nNous conservons une image tr\u00e8s floue de ce personnage, dont le nom complet \u00e9tait Gian Francesco Torresani d'Asola. Il \u00e9tait le beau-fr\u00e8re d'Alde Manuce ; son p\u00e8re, Andrea d'Asola, fut le responsable de l'imprimerie depuis la mort d'Alde (1514) jusqu'\u00e0 1529.\r\n\r\nSelon Degli Agostini, Francesco d'Asola \u00e9tait le prot\u00e9g\u00e9 du cardinal Hercule de Gonzague \u2014 auquel est d\u00e9di\u00e9e l'\u00e9dition de la Physique \u2014 et il avait repris avec succ\u00e8s l'h\u00e9ritage d'Alde. Pour J. B. Egnazio, d'Asola \u00e9tait un \u00ab jeune homme cultiv\u00e9 ayant les meilleures habitudes \u00bb et, en 1542, Pellicier le remercie de l'envoi \u00e0 la biblioth\u00e8que de Fontainebleau de quatre-vingts manuscrits grecs et de quelques autres manuscrits latins.\r\n\r\nMalgr\u00e9 sa gentillesse et ses \u00ab meilleures habitudes \u00bb, il est \u00e9vident que d'Asola n'adopte pas la devise d'Alde : \u00ab Non enim recipio emendaturum libros \u00bb, car il a beaucoup amend\u00e9.\r\n\r\nDiels avait raison lorsqu'il signalait que \u00ab Aldini exempli editor haud pauca novavit, infeliciter plurima \u00bb. [conclusion p. 86]","btype":3,"date":"1985","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gj5dBBrkScJI1Gs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":54,"full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":604,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Scriptorium","volume":"39","issue":"1","pages":"70\u201388"}},"sort":["Les sources v\u00e9nitiennes de l\u2019\u00e9dition aldine du Livre I du Commentaire de Simplicius sur la \u201ePhysique\u201c d\u2019Aristote"]}

Levels of human thinking in Philoponus, 1985
By: Verbeke, Gérard, Laga, Carl (Ed.), Munitiz, Joseph A. (Ed.), Rompay, Lucas van (Ed.)
Title Levels of human thinking in Philoponus
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1985
Published in After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday
Pages 451-470
Categories no categories
Author(s) Verbeke, Gérard
Editor(s) Laga, Carl , Munitiz, Joseph A. , Rompay, Lucas van
Translator(s)
What is finally the meaning of Philoponus’s  teaching on  the levels of thought? Taking into account the previous considerations, we may 
conclude that this doctrine  is  intended  to disclose  the true  nature  of philosophical  reflection  as  a  direct  and  immediate  intuition  of  the 
intelligible world.  This disclosure  is an  internal  one:  each  individual bears within himself, in the hidden abodes of his consciousness, a treasure 
of philosophical wisdom". In order to contemplate the highest truth, man should not leave himself,  on  the contrary  he should  come  back 
and turn  to  himself,  to  his  true self.  Most  people live outside  them­selves in a permanent forgetfulness of their  real  nature:  they  hardly 
participate in philosophical wisdom, they only possess some common intuitions,  which  are  a  kind  of  trace  or  vestige  of  rational  truth. 
They never come to the level of a direct contemplation of the intelligibles. In  order  to  reach  the  supreme  level  of thinking  man  needs  a  moral preparation,  which  makes  him  able  to  overcome  the  influence  of irrational movements; he also needs an intellectual training by means 
of discursive  reasoning  in  order  to  free  himself from  the  impact  of senses  and  imagination.  If these  requirements  are  fulfilled,  man  be­
comes  able to  contemplate  directly  true reality  in  the  internal  world of his consciousness. [conclusion, p. 469]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1391","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1391,"authors_free":[{"id":2156,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2160,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":349,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Laga, Carl","free_first_name":"Carl","free_last_name":"Laga","norm_person":{"id":349,"first_name":"Carl","last_name":"Laga","full_name":"Laga, Carl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119278146","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2161,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":350,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","free_first_name":"Joseph A.","free_last_name":"Munitiz","norm_person":{"id":350,"first_name":"Joseph A.","last_name":"Munitiz","full_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/105468202X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2162,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":351,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","free_first_name":"Lucas","free_last_name":"Rompay van","norm_person":{"id":351,"first_name":"Lucas","last_name":"Rompay, van","full_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055081453","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Levels of human thinking in Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Levels of human thinking in Philoponus"},"abstract":"What is finally the meaning of Philoponus\u2019s teaching on the levels of thought? Taking into account the previous considerations, we may \r\nconclude that this doctrine is intended to disclose the true nature of philosophical reflection as a direct and immediate intuition of the \r\nintelligible world. This disclosure is an internal one: each individual bears within himself, in the hidden abodes of his consciousness, a treasure \r\nof philosophical wisdom\". In order to contemplate the highest truth, man should not leave himself, on the contrary he should come back \r\nand turn to himself, to his true self. Most people live outside them\u00adselves in a permanent forgetfulness of their real nature: they hardly \r\nparticipate in philosophical wisdom, they only possess some common intuitions, which are a kind of trace or vestige of rational truth. \r\nThey never come to the level of a direct contemplation of the intelligibles. In order to reach the supreme level of thinking man needs a moral preparation, which makes him able to overcome the influence of irrational movements; he also needs an intellectual training by means \r\nof discursive reasoning in order to free himself from the impact of senses and imagination. If these requirements are fulfilled, man be\u00ad\r\ncomes able to contemplate directly true reality in the internal world of his consciousness. [conclusion, p. 469]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PBqIyB5guZfHl6C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":349,"full_name":"Laga, Carl","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":350,"full_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":351,"full_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1391,"section_of":1392,"pages":"451-470","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1392,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Laga1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume in honour of Prof. P.H.L. Eggermont, Indologist and Classicist, is focused on North and Northwest India, and on the adjacent regions to the west, with special attention to the Hellenistic monarchies, the historical geography of India, the ancient trade routes, and the contacts between India, Greece and Rome. The contributions of this Festschrift provide a bulk of material, especially for those interested in relations between Classical and Oriental philological, historical, archaeological, and geographical sources. Besides, the volume contains a biography and a bibliography of Prof. Eggermont. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERNutaoLJTpirTN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1392,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Itgeverij Peeters Leuven","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Levels of human thinking in Philoponus"]}

Light from Aristotle's "Physics" on the Text of Parmenides B 8 D-K, 1977
By: Solmsen, Friedrich
Title Light from Aristotle's "Physics" on the Text of Parmenides B 8 D-K
Type Article
Language English
Date 1977
Journal Phronesis
Volume 22
Issue 1
Pages 10-12
Categories no categories
Author(s) Solmsen, Friedrich
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Aristotle's reputation as a historian of philosophy is far from good. We do not plead for a revision of the current estimate. The last sentence copied above suggests a causal relation of doctrines that is hard to square with the facts. On the whole, however, he has in this instance done better than usual; for he has, with genuine historical understanding, realized how the early Presocratics, whose search was for physical explanations, were stopped in their tracks when Parmenides issued his peremptory veto of genesis and phthora (how they worked themselves out of this deadlock is irrelevant).
It would be futile to assign this refutation of genesis in both of its forms to any thinker other than Parmenides and no less futile to surmise that Aristotle here, for the sake of completeness or for reasons similar to those operative with Parmenides’ modern interpreters, credited him with an argument he did not use but would have been well advised to use. Throughout a large part of Physics I, Parmenides’ (and Melissus’) position presents the great obstacle to Aristotle's efforts at treating genesis as a reality. The monolithic, unchanging ὄν deprives physics of the principles (archai) without which it cannot build. Aristotle launches attack after attack against the fortress that had so long been considered impregnable. Having conquered it, he constructs his own theory of genesis. It is the "only solution" (monoeidês lysis, 191a23; see above), he declares triumphantly and proceeds to look once more at the objections raised by the Eleatics.
In the remainder of chapter 8, he sets forth, on the basis of his own theory, why genesis from Being and from not-Being are perfectly valid concepts. There are more ways than one to show that they are legitimate. [p. 11-12]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1015","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1015,"authors_free":[{"id":1531,"entry_id":1015,"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":"Light from Aristotle's \"Physics\" on the Text of Parmenides B 8 D-K","main_title":{"title":"Light from Aristotle's \"Physics\" on the Text of Parmenides B 8 D-K"},"abstract":"Aristotle's reputation as a historian of philosophy is far from good. We do not plead for a revision of the current estimate. The last sentence copied above suggests a causal relation of doctrines that is hard to square with the facts. On the whole, however, he has in this instance done better than usual; for he has, with genuine historical understanding, realized how the early Presocratics, whose search was for physical explanations, were stopped in their tracks when Parmenides issued his peremptory veto of genesis and phthora (how they worked themselves out of this deadlock is irrelevant).\r\nIt would be futile to assign this refutation of genesis in both of its forms to any thinker other than Parmenides and no less futile to surmise that Aristotle here, for the sake of completeness or for reasons similar to those operative with Parmenides\u2019 modern interpreters, credited him with an argument he did not use but would have been well advised to use. Throughout a large part of Physics I, Parmenides\u2019 (and Melissus\u2019) position presents the great obstacle to Aristotle's efforts at treating genesis as a reality. The monolithic, unchanging \u1f44\u03bd deprives physics of the principles (archai) without which it cannot build. Aristotle launches attack after attack against the fortress that had so long been considered impregnable. Having conquered it, he constructs his own theory of genesis. It is the \"only solution\" (monoeid\u00eas lysis, 191a23; see above), he declares triumphantly and proceeds to look once more at the objections raised by the Eleatics.\r\nIn the remainder of chapter 8, he sets forth, on the basis of his own theory, why genesis from Being and from not-Being are perfectly valid concepts. There are more ways than one to show that they are legitimate. [p. 11-12]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/T9uT5aXwXA1HemE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":316,"full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1015,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"22","issue":"1","pages":"10-12"}},"sort":["Light from Aristotle's \"Physics\" on the Text of Parmenides B 8 D-K"]}

Lucretius Contra Empedoclen: A Textual Note, 1977
By: Clay, Diskin
Title Lucretius Contra Empedoclen: A Textual Note
Type Article
Language English
Date 1977
Journal The Classical Journal
Volume 73
Issue 1
Pages 27-29
Categories no categories
Author(s) Clay, Diskin
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In what must be the shortest textual note ever published, Bailey and Maas recovered the text of Lucretius I. 744:

    aera solem imbrem terras animalia fruges
    Imbrem scripsimus; ignem codd.

This is their note. Why they wrote imbrem for ignem, they did not say, perhaps because any reader familiar with Lucretius' argument and Empedocles' poem On Nature knows why.

Our manuscripts present us with a world composed of air, the sun, fire, the earth, and the products of the earth (aera solem ignem terras animalia fruges); Empedocles presents us with a world that is rooted in the four elements of air, earth, fire, and water. These he describes variously, but Lucretius has already powerfully invoked them at the very beginning of his poem, well before he returns to them in his refutation of Empedocles' theory of matter.

Within the first nine lines of his proem, he evokes the stars (which are soon associated with fire, I. 231, 1034), the sea, the earth, the light of the sun, winds, the earth, the sea, and again light: in short, not the familiar Roman universe of three elements—the heaven, earth, and water—but the Greek world of air, earth, fire, and water.

This world he returns to as he presents the elemental theories of "those who multiply the elements which generate the world," and who join air to fire and earth to water:

    I 714 et qui quattuor ex rebus posse omnia rentur
    ex igni terra atque anima procrescere et imbri.

There are no textual problems here, although anima and imber are striking and unusual as descriptions of air and water. Nevertheless, they stand in the text. But the theory of four elements presents a problem when it is reduced by one in the manuscripts of Lucretius: aera, solem, ignem, terras.

Christ saw the problem, and in 1853 he emended the text to give a world of four elements: he took the offending term to be solem, which he emended to rorem—creating a world of air, dew, fire, and earth. This emendation has the virtue of changing only two letters of the manuscripts to create water from the sun, and rorem is a perfectly good Lucretian word for water (cf. I. 771).

Dew is a form of water, but Empedocles does not use it as a term to represent this elemental mass. ὕδωρ (hydor) is a word he used to represent water: Simplicius (commenting on Aristotle's Physics) noticed this—καλεῖ ὕδωρ ὄμβρον—and at least three passages from Empedocles survive to prove him right.

Simplicius knew of Empedocles' various ways of naming his elements, but neither Lucretius' ancient nor modern editors seem to. Imber seemed strange for water, so an early editor or reader of Lucretius emended the text of I. 784-785 to read:

"first these followers of Empedocles make fire transform itself into the gusts of air,"

    I 784 hinc ignem gigni terramque creari
    ex igni retroque in terram cuncta reverti.

Marullus understood what had gone wrong and emended ignem by imbrem and igni by imbri, making water out of fire and recovering how a Presocratic could imagine a ladder of elemental transformations moving down from air to precipitation to earth.

Lucretius' attack on Empedocles' elemental theory is only one of the many signs of his knowledge of the Περὶ φύσεως (Peri Physeōs). De Rerum Natura I. 744 and 784-785 are not the only passages that reveal this, and these passages are not the only ones where Empedocles' Greek allows Lucretius' modern reader to recover his original text:

    II. 1114 ignem ignes procudent aetheraque (aether)

This is restored by Empedocles (DK 31 B 37):

    (πυρὶ γὰρ αἰεὶ πῦρ ἐπὶ πυρὶ) αἰεὶ δὲ ξυνοίσει
    καὶ ἀὴρ ἀέρι

Lachmann, with the confidence inspired by knowing too much and too little, emended aeraque (aer). Simplicius could have pointed him in the right direction when he gave one of Empedocles' terms for aether as aer, as could Empedocles himself.

This has become a long note on one word in the manuscripts of Lucretius. Its justification is this: Bailey and Maas published their note in 1943. The emendation was incorporated into the text that accompanies Bailey's three-volume commentary on Lucretius (Oxford 1947), but unaccountably, it did not appear in the Oxford text reprinted in 1947 or in any later reprinting.

In the tenth edition of his Lucrèce (Paris 1959), Ernout prints the text of our manuscripts; so does Josef Martin in the five editions of his Lucretius published since 1953. Büchner (Wiesbaden 1966) accepts Christ's rorem as "less drastic" (levior) than imbrem, and so, evidently, does Müller (Fribourg 1975).

Only one of the major editions of Lucretius to appear since 1943, that of Martin Ferguson Smith (London and Cambridge, Mass. 1975), prints what Lucretius wrote: the rest prefer dew to rain.

So weak is the force of ratio et res ipsa. [the entire text p. 27-29]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1272","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1272,"authors_free":[{"id":1862,"entry_id":1272,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":50,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Clay, Diskin","free_first_name":"Diskin","free_last_name":"Clay","norm_person":{"id":50,"first_name":"Diskin","last_name":"Clay","full_name":"Clay, Diskin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1069425435","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Lucretius Contra Empedoclen: A Textual Note","main_title":{"title":"Lucretius Contra Empedoclen: A Textual Note"},"abstract":"In what must be the shortest textual note ever published, Bailey and Maas recovered the text of Lucretius I. 744:\r\n\r\n aera solem imbrem terras animalia fruges\r\n Imbrem scripsimus; ignem codd.\r\n\r\nThis is their note. Why they wrote imbrem for ignem, they did not say, perhaps because any reader familiar with Lucretius' argument and Empedocles' poem On Nature knows why.\r\n\r\nOur manuscripts present us with a world composed of air, the sun, fire, the earth, and the products of the earth (aera solem ignem terras animalia fruges); Empedocles presents us with a world that is rooted in the four elements of air, earth, fire, and water. These he describes variously, but Lucretius has already powerfully invoked them at the very beginning of his poem, well before he returns to them in his refutation of Empedocles' theory of matter.\r\n\r\nWithin the first nine lines of his proem, he evokes the stars (which are soon associated with fire, I. 231, 1034), the sea, the earth, the light of the sun, winds, the earth, the sea, and again light: in short, not the familiar Roman universe of three elements\u2014the heaven, earth, and water\u2014but the Greek world of air, earth, fire, and water.\r\n\r\nThis world he returns to as he presents the elemental theories of \"those who multiply the elements which generate the world,\" and who join air to fire and earth to water:\r\n\r\n I 714 et qui quattuor ex rebus posse omnia rentur\r\n ex igni terra atque anima procrescere et imbri.\r\n\r\nThere are no textual problems here, although anima and imber are striking and unusual as descriptions of air and water. Nevertheless, they stand in the text. But the theory of four elements presents a problem when it is reduced by one in the manuscripts of Lucretius: aera, solem, ignem, terras.\r\n\r\nChrist saw the problem, and in 1853 he emended the text to give a world of four elements: he took the offending term to be solem, which he emended to rorem\u2014creating a world of air, dew, fire, and earth. This emendation has the virtue of changing only two letters of the manuscripts to create water from the sun, and rorem is a perfectly good Lucretian word for water (cf. I. 771).\r\n\r\nDew is a form of water, but Empedocles does not use it as a term to represent this elemental mass. \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 (hydor) is a word he used to represent water: Simplicius (commenting on Aristotle's Physics) noticed this\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u1f44\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u2014and at least three passages from Empedocles survive to prove him right.\r\n\r\nSimplicius knew of Empedocles' various ways of naming his elements, but neither Lucretius' ancient nor modern editors seem to. Imber seemed strange for water, so an early editor or reader of Lucretius emended the text of I. 784-785 to read:\r\n\r\n\"first these followers of Empedocles make fire transform itself into the gusts of air,\"\r\n\r\n I 784 hinc ignem gigni terramque creari\r\n ex igni retroque in terram cuncta reverti.\r\n\r\nMarullus understood what had gone wrong and emended ignem by imbrem and igni by imbri, making water out of fire and recovering how a Presocratic could imagine a ladder of elemental transformations moving down from air to precipitation to earth.\r\n\r\nLucretius' attack on Empedocles' elemental theory is only one of the many signs of his knowledge of the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 (Peri Physe\u014ds). De Rerum Natura I. 744 and 784-785 are not the only passages that reveal this, and these passages are not the only ones where Empedocles' Greek allows Lucretius' modern reader to recover his original text:\r\n\r\n II. 1114 ignem ignes procudent aetheraque (aether)\r\n\r\nThis is restored by Empedocles (DK 31 B 37):\r\n\r\n (\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f76) \u03b1\u1f30\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\r\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\r\n\r\nLachmann, with the confidence inspired by knowing too much and too little, emended aeraque (aer). Simplicius could have pointed him in the right direction when he gave one of Empedocles' terms for aether as aer, as could Empedocles himself.\r\n\r\nThis has become a long note on one word in the manuscripts of Lucretius. Its justification is this: Bailey and Maas published their note in 1943. The emendation was incorporated into the text that accompanies Bailey's three-volume commentary on Lucretius (Oxford 1947), but unaccountably, it did not appear in the Oxford text reprinted in 1947 or in any later reprinting.\r\n\r\nIn the tenth edition of his Lucr\u00e8ce (Paris 1959), Ernout prints the text of our manuscripts; so does Josef Martin in the five editions of his Lucretius published since 1953. B\u00fcchner (Wiesbaden 1966) accepts Christ's rorem as \"less drastic\" (levior) than imbrem, and so, evidently, does M\u00fcller (Fribourg 1975).\r\n\r\nOnly one of the major editions of Lucretius to appear since 1943, that of Martin Ferguson Smith (London and Cambridge, Mass. 1975), prints what Lucretius wrote: the rest prefer dew to rain.\r\n\r\nSo weak is the force of ratio et res ipsa. [the entire text p. 27-29]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/a3Cc8mgHkQFW4AL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":50,"full_name":"Clay, Diskin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1272,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Journal","volume":"73","issue":"1","pages":"27-29"}},"sort":["Lucretius Contra Empedoclen: A Textual Note"]}

Mansel’e Armağan. Mélanges Mansel, vol. I, 1974
By: Mansel, Arif Müfid (Ed.), Akurgal, Ekrem (Ed.), Alkım, Uluğ Bahadır (Ed.)
Title Mansel’e Armağan. Mélanges Mansel, vol. I
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1974
Publication Place Ankara
Publisher Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Mansel, Arif Müfid , Akurgal, Ekrem , Alkım, Uluğ Bahadır
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"296","_score":null,"_source":{"id":296,"authors_free":[{"id":2086,"entry_id":296,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":260,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","free_first_name":"Arif M\u00fcfid","free_last_name":"Mansel","norm_person":{"id":260,"first_name":"Arif M\u00fcfid","last_name":"Mansel","full_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119020068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2087,"entry_id":296,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":262,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","free_first_name":"Ekrem","free_last_name":"Akurgal","norm_person":{"id":262,"first_name":"Ekrem","last_name":"Akurgal","full_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118859358","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2088,"entry_id":296,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":261,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","free_first_name":"Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","free_last_name":"Alk\u0131m","norm_person":{"id":261,"first_name":"Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","last_name":"Alk\u0131m","full_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118859137","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mansel\u2019e Arma\u011fan. M\u00e9langes Mansel, vol. I","main_title":{"title":"Mansel\u2019e Arma\u011fan. M\u00e9langes Mansel, vol. I"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1974","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ySvGVCjObmF3lEv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":260,"full_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":262,"full_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":261,"full_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":296,"pubplace":"Ankara","publisher":"T\u00fcrk Tarih Kurumu Bas\u0131mevi","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Mansel\u2019e Arma\u011fan. M\u00e9langes Mansel, vol. I"]}

Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements, 1987
By: Mueller, Ian, Pépin, Jean (Ed.), Saffrey, Henri Dominique (Ed.)
Title Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)
Pages 305-318
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mueller, Ian
Editor(s) Pépin, Jean , Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Translator(s)
In  the  prologue  to  his  commentary  on  book  I  of  Euclid’s Elements Proclus  refers  to  two  areas  of  disagreement  among  the  Platonists concerning  mathematics.  In  the  first passage  in  which  he  does  this (29.14ff.)  he  indicates  that  some  philoi  from  his  own  hearth  encourage 
students  to  disdain mathematics,  enlisting  on  their  side  Plato  himself because  of  some  of  Socrates’  remarks  in  the  Republic,  notably  the rhetorical  question  of  533 c 3-5 [...]. The  second  passage  comes  at  the  end  of  Proclus’  famous description  of  the  character  of  geometry [...]. In  this  paper  I wish  to  pursue  these  disagreements  in  the  hopes  of throwing  light  on  distinctive  features  of  Proclus’  philosophy  of mathematics. [Introduction, p. 305]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1211","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1211,"authors_free":[{"id":1792,"entry_id":1211,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1793,"entry_id":1211,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":227,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":{"id":227,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"P\u00e9pin","full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119165147","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2119,"entry_id":1211,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements","main_title":{"title":"Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements"},"abstract":"In the prologue to his commentary on book I of Euclid\u2019s Elements Proclus refers to two areas of disagreement among the Platonists concerning mathematics. In the first passage in which he does this (29.14ff.) he indicates that some philoi from his own hearth encourage \r\nstudents to disdain mathematics, enlisting on their side Plato himself because of some of Socrates\u2019 remarks in the Republic, notably the rhetorical question of 533 c 3-5 [...]. The second passage comes at the end of Proclus\u2019 famous description of the character of geometry [...]. In this paper I wish to pursue these disagreements in the hopes of throwing light on distinctive features of Proclus\u2019 philosophy of mathematics. [Introduction, p. 305]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KU98nZhkgyJWbsr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":227,"full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1211,"section_of":159,"pages":"305-318","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":159,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"P\u00e9pin-Saffrey1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Du 5e si\u00e8cle jusqu'au d\u00e9but du 19e si\u00e8cle, Proclus fut consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme l'h\u00e9ritier par excellence de Platon, celui qui avait su tirer des dialogues un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique et coh\u00e9rent de la philosophie platonicienne. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QluMshmjYrV5JtV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":159,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre national de la recherche scientifique","series":"Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements"]}

Matter, Space, and Motion. Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel, 1988
By: Sorabji, Richard
Title Matter, Space, and Motion. Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1988
Publication Place London
Publisher Duckworth
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The nature of matter was as intriguing a question for ancient philosophers as it is for contemporary physicists, and Matter, Space, and Motion presents a fresh and illuminating account of the rich legacy of the physical theories of the Greeks from the fifth century B.C. to the late sixth century A.D. [a.a]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"5","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5,"authors_free":[{"id":5,"entry_id":5,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Matter, Space, and Motion. Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel","main_title":{"title":"Matter, Space, and Motion. Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel"},"abstract":"The nature of matter was as intriguing a question for ancient philosophers as it is for contemporary physicists, and Matter, Space, and Motion presents a fresh and illuminating account of the rich legacy of the physical theories of the Greeks from the fifth century B.C. to the late sixth century A.D. [a.a]","btype":1,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UMwsdcucXfrqkbZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":5,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Matter, Space, and Motion. Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel"]}

More on Zeno's "Forty logoi", 1990
By: Tarrant, Harold
Title More on Zeno's "Forty logoi"
Type Article
Language English
Date 1990
Journal Illinois Classical Studies
Volume 15
Issue 1
Pages 23-37
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In Illinois Classical Studies 11 (1986), 35-41, John Dillon presents material from Proclus' Commentary on the Parmenides in which he makes it clear that Proclus knew of a work purporting to be by Zeno, which contained forty logoi. This work was allegedly the one that "Zeno" had just read at the opening of the main narrative of Plato’s Parmenides (127c), and which Socrates subsequently challenges (127d-130a). Dillon presents the same material in his introduction to Proclus' In Parmenidem. Its relevance is no longer confined to the Neoplatonists, as Dillon believes that it is possible the Forty Logoi “at least contained genuine material, though perhaps worked over at a later date.” It threatens to have implications both for Eleatic studies and for the interpretation of the Parmenides itself.

I believe that the issue must be tackled again, not merely because of Dillon’s judiciously aporetic conclusion, but because I fear that there are important points which have not yet been addressed. Firstly, from a passage not included in Dillon's survey but which seems to me to be relevant, it appears that the allegedly Zenonian work was known to much earlier, pre-Plotinian interpreters, who considered it important for the interpretation of the hypotheses of the second part of the Parmenides, at least down to 155e and possibly beyond. This increases the potential importance of the work, as well as marginally increasing its claim to be genuine; at least it was not a Neoplatonic forgery.

Secondly, despite Proclus’ apparent familiarity with it, the work does not seem to clarify Plato's puzzling reference to the “first hypothesis of the first logos” at 127d7. One would have expected that consultation of the relevant text of Zeno would have done so, and this might be considered an obstacle to believing that the work is what it purports to be.

Thirdly, there is a significant question of Proclus’ independence. There are some troubling features about the historical material in this commentary which are absent from his Timaeus commentary, for instance. Most relevant here is the rather scrappy way in which Parmenides himself has been quoted. On p. 665, the three short quotations from B8 are out of order; on p. 708, two of the same snippets from B8 have B5 (whose genuineness is less than certain) inserted between them. On p. 1152, we encounter seven tiny quotations, with the five from B8 this time being in the correct order, but with an impossible version of B3 inserted between B8.30 and B8.35-36; B4.1 then follows.

The total number of lines quoted in whole or in part (excluding uncertain allusions) amounts to only 21 (9 of these from B8.25-36), but some lines appear three or more times (B8.4, 25, 29, 44). It is clear that Proclus remembered certain favorite phrases, and one doubts whether he was referring to any text, except possibly at p. 1134, where a passage of four lines is quoted. Even here, either Proclus or the scribes have failed us in the last line. Likewise, there is no need to suppose that he is referring at any point to the alleged work of Zeno. Certainly, he knows something about it, and he may well have had access to it and read it in the past. But I do not find anything in the text requiring that he consult the work as he writes.

Furthermore, if we bear in mind that earlier interpreters had made use of the Forty Logoi, much of Proclus' material on the work could plausibly be attributed to borrowings from earlier commentaries. One commentary he certainly used is that of Plutarch of Athens, whose work on earlier interpreters Proclus evidently admired (p. 1061.18-20). We should not allow any admiration for Proclus as a philosopher, or even for the doxographic material in other commentaries, to lead us to suppose that his reports will be either original or reliable in this commentary. [introduction p. 23-24]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"408","_score":null,"_source":{"id":408,"authors_free":[{"id":546,"entry_id":408,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"More on Zeno's \"Forty logoi\"","main_title":{"title":"More on Zeno's \"Forty logoi\""},"abstract":"In Illinois Classical Studies 11 (1986), 35-41, John Dillon presents material from Proclus' Commentary on the Parmenides in which he makes it clear that Proclus knew of a work purporting to be by Zeno, which contained forty logoi. This work was allegedly the one that \"Zeno\" had just read at the opening of the main narrative of Plato\u2019s Parmenides (127c), and which Socrates subsequently challenges (127d-130a). Dillon presents the same material in his introduction to Proclus' In Parmenidem. Its relevance is no longer confined to the Neoplatonists, as Dillon believes that it is possible the Forty Logoi \u201cat least contained genuine material, though perhaps worked over at a later date.\u201d It threatens to have implications both for Eleatic studies and for the interpretation of the Parmenides itself.\r\n\r\nI believe that the issue must be tackled again, not merely because of Dillon\u2019s judiciously aporetic conclusion, but because I fear that there are important points which have not yet been addressed. Firstly, from a passage not included in Dillon's survey but which seems to me to be relevant, it appears that the allegedly Zenonian work was known to much earlier, pre-Plotinian interpreters, who considered it important for the interpretation of the hypotheses of the second part of the Parmenides, at least down to 155e and possibly beyond. This increases the potential importance of the work, as well as marginally increasing its claim to be genuine; at least it was not a Neoplatonic forgery.\r\n\r\nSecondly, despite Proclus\u2019 apparent familiarity with it, the work does not seem to clarify Plato's puzzling reference to the \u201cfirst hypothesis of the first logos\u201d at 127d7. One would have expected that consultation of the relevant text of Zeno would have done so, and this might be considered an obstacle to believing that the work is what it purports to be.\r\n\r\nThirdly, there is a significant question of Proclus\u2019 independence. There are some troubling features about the historical material in this commentary which are absent from his Timaeus commentary, for instance. Most relevant here is the rather scrappy way in which Parmenides himself has been quoted. On p. 665, the three short quotations from B8 are out of order; on p. 708, two of the same snippets from B8 have B5 (whose genuineness is less than certain) inserted between them. On p. 1152, we encounter seven tiny quotations, with the five from B8 this time being in the correct order, but with an impossible version of B3 inserted between B8.30 and B8.35-36; B4.1 then follows.\r\n\r\nThe total number of lines quoted in whole or in part (excluding uncertain allusions) amounts to only 21 (9 of these from B8.25-36), but some lines appear three or more times (B8.4, 25, 29, 44). It is clear that Proclus remembered certain favorite phrases, and one doubts whether he was referring to any text, except possibly at p. 1134, where a passage of four lines is quoted. Even here, either Proclus or the scribes have failed us in the last line. Likewise, there is no need to suppose that he is referring at any point to the alleged work of Zeno. Certainly, he knows something about it, and he may well have had access to it and read it in the past. But I do not find anything in the text requiring that he consult the work as he writes.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, if we bear in mind that earlier interpreters had made use of the Forty Logoi, much of Proclus' material on the work could plausibly be attributed to borrowings from earlier commentaries. One commentary he certainly used is that of Plutarch of Athens, whose work on earlier interpreters Proclus evidently admired (p. 1061.18-20). We should not allow any admiration for Proclus as a philosopher, or even for the doxographic material in other commentaries, to lead us to suppose that his reports will be either original or reliable in this commentary. [introduction p. 23-24]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YLhtdTiVc9rnvdt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":408,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Illinois Classical Studies","volume":"15","issue":"1","pages":"23-37"}},"sort":["More on Zeno's \"Forty logoi\""]}

Necessity, Chance, and Freedom in the Early Atomists, 1972
By: Edmunds, Lowell
Title Necessity, Chance, and Freedom in the Early Atomists
Type Article
Language English
Date 1972
Journal Phoenix
Volume 26
Issue 4
Pages 342-357
Categories no categories
Author(s) Edmunds, Lowell
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In sum, the position of Democritus is decidedly against tyche (chance), and tyche is regarded as a subjective phenomenon. "Men have fashioned an image of Chance as an excuse for their own stupidity. For Chance rarely conflicts with Intelligence, and most things in life can be set in order by an intelligent sharp-sightedness." There remains only one noteworthy fragment that mentions chance: "Daring is the beginning of action, but chance is responsible for the end." Since this fragment contradicts everything else Democritus says about chance, and since the form of Stobaeus' quotation obscures the reference of these words, we are entitled to ask whether we should think of this as Democritus' view of chance in general, or whether he was referring to persons who, contrary to the advice of his other sententiae on chance, relied on moderation and committed themselves to overreaching and tychistic projects.

The note of moral exhortation suggests that man has a free choice between alternative ways of life, and thus that he is not in the grip of the original necessity which created the cosmos and him and endowed him with the arts. From the ethical point of view, man seems to emerge as an island of freedom—a floating island, perhaps, in a sea of necessity. If so, then Democritus' system is either dualistic or self-contradictory.

However, the example of chance in the ethical thought of Democritus has shown how freedom, if it has any place at all in Democritus' system, should be understood. Man is free to trust to luck through willful disregard for or ignorance of the laws of nature, given by necessity. But he is powerless to change the facts of necessity, and from this point of view, his freedom is an illusion, like the appearance of color. His freedom is merely subjective and of infinite unconcern to the rest of the universe.

The atomic theory, which accounted so well for the various appearances of the same phenomena to various people—tragedies and comedies are composed of the same alphabet—also accounted for a specious freedom. [conclusion p. 356-357]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"753","_score":null,"_source":{"id":753,"authors_free":[{"id":1118,"entry_id":753,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":80,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Edmunds, Lowell","free_first_name":"Lowell","free_last_name":"Edmunds","norm_person":{"id":80,"first_name":"Lowell","last_name":"Edmunds","full_name":"Edmunds, Lowell","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116147319X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Necessity, Chance, and Freedom in the Early Atomists","main_title":{"title":"Necessity, Chance, and Freedom in the Early Atomists"},"abstract":"In sum, the position of Democritus is decidedly against tyche (chance), and tyche is regarded as a subjective phenomenon. \"Men have fashioned an image of Chance as an excuse for their own stupidity. For Chance rarely conflicts with Intelligence, and most things in life can be set in order by an intelligent sharp-sightedness.\" There remains only one noteworthy fragment that mentions chance: \"Daring is the beginning of action, but chance is responsible for the end.\" Since this fragment contradicts everything else Democritus says about chance, and since the form of Stobaeus' quotation obscures the reference of these words, we are entitled to ask whether we should think of this as Democritus' view of chance in general, or whether he was referring to persons who, contrary to the advice of his other sententiae on chance, relied on moderation and committed themselves to overreaching and tychistic projects.\r\n\r\nThe note of moral exhortation suggests that man has a free choice between alternative ways of life, and thus that he is not in the grip of the original necessity which created the cosmos and him and endowed him with the arts. From the ethical point of view, man seems to emerge as an island of freedom\u2014a floating island, perhaps, in a sea of necessity. If so, then Democritus' system is either dualistic or self-contradictory.\r\n\r\nHowever, the example of chance in the ethical thought of Democritus has shown how freedom, if it has any place at all in Democritus' system, should be understood. Man is free to trust to luck through willful disregard for or ignorance of the laws of nature, given by necessity. But he is powerless to change the facts of necessity, and from this point of view, his freedom is an illusion, like the appearance of color. His freedom is merely subjective and of infinite unconcern to the rest of the universe.\r\n\r\nThe atomic theory, which accounted so well for the various appearances of the same phenomena to various people\u2014tragedies and comedies are composed of the same alphabet\u2014also accounted for a specious freedom. [conclusion p. 356-357]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NNiKvwijO2dtwFP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":80,"full_name":"Edmunds, Lowell","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":753,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phoenix","volume":"26","issue":"4","pages":"342-357"}},"sort":["Necessity, Chance, and Freedom in the Early Atomists"]}

Neoplatonic Elements in the "de Anima" Commentaries, 1976
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Neoplatonic Elements in the "de Anima" Commentaries
Type Article
Language English
Date 1976
Journal Phronesis
Volume 21
Issue 1
Pages 64-87
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Most scholars who refer to the Greek commentators for help in the understanding of difficult Aristotelian texts seem to expect straightforward scholarly treatment of their problems. Not infrequently they are disappointed and complain about the irrelevance of the commentary they read, or inveigh against the incompetence of the commentators. Only Alexander is generally exempt from such censure, and that in itself is significant. For he is the only major commentator whose work survives in any considerable quantity who wrote before Neoplatonism.

Shortly after Alexander, the kind of thought that is conveniently described by this label came to dominate Greek philosophy, and nearly all pagan philosophy and philosophical scholarship was pursued under its influence, if not by its active adherents. It is the purpose of this paper to argue that these facts are not trivial items of background interest but are fundamental to a proper assessment of the later commentators' opinions on points of Aristotelian scholarship. It is necessary to take account of the ideas and purpose of these commentators if one is to make any serious critical use of their work, and this cannot be done if one merely dips into their voluminous works in the hope of occasional enlightenment.

That these men were swayed by their own opinions and preconceptions is perhaps obvious once stated. Even Simplicius, notwithstanding his reputation for careful scholarship, is no exception. Simplicius may have done us a great service by preserving fragments of the pre-Socratics, but he was nevertheless a man who entertained ideas which were not likely to lead to the correct interpretation of Aristotle, as Hicks for one saw—Ross, it seems, did not. In fact, one might go so far as to say that Simplicius was less well-fitted than some of the other commentators to give a good account of his subject.

Those whose immediate reaction to such a statement is that it is grossly unfair to so fine a scholar might be disturbed by some of the material in the preface to Simplicius' De Anima commentary—as they would by that in Philoponus' as well—material which often escapes notice for the simple reason that one normally refers to these works for help with specific passages and does not read them as a whole.

This is not to say that there are no obvious signs of what is going on in the body of the commentaries, for there certainly are. A case in point is Simplicius' claim in the De Caelo commentary (640.27–32) that Aristotle's criticisms of Plato are directed not against Plato himself but against those who failed to grasp Plato's real meaning.

In the preface to the commentary on the Categories, Simplicius goes further and says that in dealing with Aristotle's attacks on Plato, one should not consider only the philosophers' language and complain about their discord, but rather one should concentrate on their thought and seek out their accord on most matters (In Cat. 7.29–32). Here we have two expressions of the normal Neoplatonic view that Plato and Aristotle were usually trying to say the same thing.

This view can, of course, be traced back to the revival of positive teaching in the New Academy. This is not to say that no Neoplatonist was aware of the differences, and certain Aristotelian doctrines remained unacceptable. In the passage we have just mentioned, Simplicius talks about he en tois pleistois symphonia, and elsewhere he shows that he is alive to differences (e.g., In De Caelo 454.23 ff.), even if he does regard Aristotle as Plato's truest pupil (ib. 378.20 f.) or his best interpreter (In De An. 245.12).

Philoponus, moreover, actually protested against the view that Aristotle's attacks on Plato's ideas were not directed at Plato himself, a view that seems to have had some currency (cf. De Aet. M. II.2 29.2–8 R). None the less, ever since Plotinus, whose adoption of much Aristotelian thought would be clear enough without Porphyry's explicit statement on the point (Vita Plot. 14.4 ff.), the new Platonism had been more or less Aristotelianized: the controversies about whether or not Aristotelian views could be accepted by Platonists which had been current in the Middle Platonic period were no longer live.

By the time Simplicius and Philoponus composed their commentaries, Aristotle's philosophy had been used as the standard introduction to Plato for at least two centuries. The tendency among certain modern scholars to see Aristotle simply as a Platonist has a precedent in the activities of the Neoplatonists: in both cases, it depends on a somewhat special understanding of Plato. [introduction 64-66]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"612","_score":null,"_source":{"id":612,"authors_free":[{"id":867,"entry_id":612,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonic Elements in the \"de Anima\" Commentaries","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonic Elements in the \"de Anima\" Commentaries"},"abstract":"Most scholars who refer to the Greek commentators for help in the understanding of difficult Aristotelian texts seem to expect straightforward scholarly treatment of their problems. Not infrequently they are disappointed and complain about the irrelevance of the commentary they read, or inveigh against the incompetence of the commentators. Only Alexander is generally exempt from such censure, and that in itself is significant. For he is the only major commentator whose work survives in any considerable quantity who wrote before Neoplatonism.\r\n\r\nShortly after Alexander, the kind of thought that is conveniently described by this label came to dominate Greek philosophy, and nearly all pagan philosophy and philosophical scholarship was pursued under its influence, if not by its active adherents. It is the purpose of this paper to argue that these facts are not trivial items of background interest but are fundamental to a proper assessment of the later commentators' opinions on points of Aristotelian scholarship. It is necessary to take account of the ideas and purpose of these commentators if one is to make any serious critical use of their work, and this cannot be done if one merely dips into their voluminous works in the hope of occasional enlightenment.\r\n\r\nThat these men were swayed by their own opinions and preconceptions is perhaps obvious once stated. Even Simplicius, notwithstanding his reputation for careful scholarship, is no exception. Simplicius may have done us a great service by preserving fragments of the pre-Socratics, but he was nevertheless a man who entertained ideas which were not likely to lead to the correct interpretation of Aristotle, as Hicks for one saw\u2014Ross, it seems, did not. In fact, one might go so far as to say that Simplicius was less well-fitted than some of the other commentators to give a good account of his subject.\r\n\r\nThose whose immediate reaction to such a statement is that it is grossly unfair to so fine a scholar might be disturbed by some of the material in the preface to Simplicius' De Anima commentary\u2014as they would by that in Philoponus' as well\u2014material which often escapes notice for the simple reason that one normally refers to these works for help with specific passages and does not read them as a whole.\r\n\r\nThis is not to say that there are no obvious signs of what is going on in the body of the commentaries, for there certainly are. A case in point is Simplicius' claim in the De Caelo commentary (640.27\u201332) that Aristotle's criticisms of Plato are directed not against Plato himself but against those who failed to grasp Plato's real meaning.\r\n\r\nIn the preface to the commentary on the Categories, Simplicius goes further and says that in dealing with Aristotle's attacks on Plato, one should not consider only the philosophers' language and complain about their discord, but rather one should concentrate on their thought and seek out their accord on most matters (In Cat. 7.29\u201332). Here we have two expressions of the normal Neoplatonic view that Plato and Aristotle were usually trying to say the same thing.\r\n\r\nThis view can, of course, be traced back to the revival of positive teaching in the New Academy. This is not to say that no Neoplatonist was aware of the differences, and certain Aristotelian doctrines remained unacceptable. In the passage we have just mentioned, Simplicius talks about he en tois pleistois symphonia, and elsewhere he shows that he is alive to differences (e.g., In De Caelo 454.23 ff.), even if he does regard Aristotle as Plato's truest pupil (ib. 378.20 f.) or his best interpreter (In De An. 245.12).\r\n\r\nPhiloponus, moreover, actually protested against the view that Aristotle's attacks on Plato's ideas were not directed at Plato himself, a view that seems to have had some currency (cf. De Aet. M. II.2 29.2\u20138 R). None the less, ever since Plotinus, whose adoption of much Aristotelian thought would be clear enough without Porphyry's explicit statement on the point (Vita Plot. 14.4 ff.), the new Platonism had been more or less Aristotelianized: the controversies about whether or not Aristotelian views could be accepted by Platonists which had been current in the Middle Platonic period were no longer live.\r\n\r\nBy the time Simplicius and Philoponus composed their commentaries, Aristotle's philosophy had been used as the standard introduction to Plato for at least two centuries. The tendency among certain modern scholars to see Aristotle simply as a Platonist has a precedent in the activities of the Neoplatonists: in both cases, it depends on a somewhat special understanding of Plato. [introduction 64-66]","btype":3,"date":"1976","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3j2gfRYnCCVhtJC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":612,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"21","issue":"1","pages":"64-87"}},"sort":["Neoplatonic Elements in the \"de Anima\" Commentaries"]}

Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on "Phantasia", 1977
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on "Phantasia"
Type Article
Language English
Date 1977
Journal The Review of Metaphysics
Volume 31
Issue 2
Pages 242-257
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The  ancient commentaries on Aristotle have for the most part 
remained in that strange kind of no-man's land between Classical 
and Medieval studies that even now holds so  many of the productions 
of  later  antiquity. On  the whole it would be  true  to  say  that  students 
of  Neoplatonism?for the commentators were usually Neoplatonists 
?prefer to occupy themselves with openly Neoplatonic writings. 
Modern Aristotelian scholars, on the other hand, tend to take very 
little account of the opinions of their ancient predecessors. In this 
way they differ from the Medie  vals, both Christian and Moslem: as 
is well known, Aquinas instigated the translation of many of these 
commentaries by his fellow Dominican, William of Moerbeke, while a 
century before, Averroes, the greatest of the Arabic commentators, 
had made ample use of at least the earlier Greek expositions. [Introduction, p. 242]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"877","_score":null,"_source":{"id":877,"authors_free":[{"id":1288,"entry_id":877,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on \"Phantasia\"","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on \"Phantasia\""},"abstract":"The ancient commentaries on Aristotle have for the most part \r\nremained in that strange kind of no-man's land between Classical \r\nand Medieval studies that even now holds so many of the productions \r\nof later antiquity. On the whole it would be true to say that students \r\nof Neoplatonism?for the commentators were usually Neoplatonists \r\n?prefer to occupy themselves with openly Neoplatonic writings. \r\nModern Aristotelian scholars, on the other hand, tend to take very \r\nlittle account of the opinions of their ancient predecessors. In this \r\nway they differ from the Medie vals, both Christian and Moslem: as \r\nis well known, Aquinas instigated the translation of many of these \r\ncommentaries by his fellow Dominican, William of Moerbeke, while a \r\ncentury before, Averroes, the greatest of the Arabic commentators, \r\nhad made ample use of at least the earlier Greek expositions. [Introduction, p. 242]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xdGhkQhUkY7sWbE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":877,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Review of Metaphysics","volume":"31","issue":"2","pages":"242-257"}},"sort":["Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on \"Phantasia\""]}

Neoplatonism and Christian thought, 1982
By: O'Meara, Dominic, J. (Ed.)
Title Neoplatonism and Christian thought
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1982
Publication Place Albany
Publisher State University of New York Press
Series Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern
Volume 3
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) O'Meara, Dominic, J.
Translator(s)
In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines—classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"12","_score":null,"_source":{"id":12,"authors_free":[{"id":2390,"entry_id":12,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic, J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought"},"abstract":"In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines\u2014classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]","btype":4,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8tb5ZmmacZhgjDn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":12,"pubplace":"Albany","publisher":"State University of New York Press","series":"Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Neoplatonism and Christian thought"]}

Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong, 1981
By: Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Markus, R. A. (Ed.)
Title Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1981
Publication Place London
Publisher Variorum
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Markus, R. A.
Translator(s)
The studies collected in this book are all concerned with aspects of the Platonic tradition, either in its own internal development in the Hellenistic age and the period of the Roman Empire, or with the influence of Platonism, in one or other of its forms, on other spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity. [offical abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"131","_score":null,"_source":{"id":131,"authors_free":[{"id":162,"entry_id":131,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2228,"entry_id":131,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":403,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Markus, R. A.","free_first_name":"R. A.","free_last_name":"Markus","norm_person":{"id":403,"first_name":"R. A.","last_name":"Markus","full_name":"Markus, R. A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121838862","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong"},"abstract":"The studies collected in this book are all concerned with aspects of the Platonic tradition, either in its own internal development in the Hellenistic age and the period of the Roman Empire, or with the influence of Platonism, in one or other of its forms, on other spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity. [offical abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PcJka3NQUzhA8jZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":403,"full_name":"Markus, R. A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":131,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Variorum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong"]}

Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism, 1982
By: Mahoney, Edward P., O'Meara, Dominic J. (Ed.)
Title Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1982
Published in Neoplatonism and Christian thought
Pages 169-177
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mahoney, Edward P.
Editor(s) O'Meara, Dominic J.
Translator(s)
In this paper I should like to share with my fellow students of Neoplatonism the results  of  researches  in  medieval  and  Renaissance  Aristotelianism  that  have brought to  light interesting ways in which Neoplatonism came to have a special impact on the development of Renaissance Aristotelianism. It is certainly not my aim to exclude other possible ways in which Neoplatonism had its effect, but I do believe  that historians  of ancient  Neoplatonism  will  themselves  be  surprised  to learn of the pervasiveness of certain themes among supposed proponents of Aris­totle during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The two topics on which I wish to concentrate are (1) the influence on late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Aristotelianism of two late ancient commentators on Aristotle, namely, Themistius <317—388) and Simplicius (Jl. 530),1 and (2) a conceptual scheme of metaphysical hierarchy whose origins are clearly Neoplatonic and which was constantly debated during the same period. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1111","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1111,"authors_free":[{"id":1678,"entry_id":1111,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":459,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","free_first_name":"Edward P.","free_last_name":"Mahoney","norm_person":{"id":459,"first_name":"Edward P.","last_name":"Mahoney","full_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123905818","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1679,"entry_id":1111,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism"},"abstract":"In this paper I should like to share with my fellow students of Neoplatonism the results of researches in medieval and Renaissance Aristotelianism that have brought to light interesting ways in which Neoplatonism came to have a special impact on the development of Renaissance Aristotelianism. It is certainly not my aim to exclude other possible ways in which Neoplatonism had its effect, but I do believe that historians of ancient Neoplatonism will themselves be surprised to learn of the pervasiveness of certain themes among supposed proponents of Aris\u00adtotle during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The two topics on which I wish to concentrate are (1) the influence on late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Aristotelianism of two late ancient commentators on Aristotle, namely, Themistius <317\u2014388) and Simplicius (Jl. 530),1 and (2) a conceptual scheme of metaphysical hierarchy whose origins are clearly Neoplatonic and which was constantly debated during the same period. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2eyv4WzmHFlkenV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":459,"full_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1111,"section_of":12,"pages":"169-177","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":12,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"O'Meara1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines\u2014classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8tb5ZmmacZhgjDn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":12,"pubplace":"Albany","publisher":"State University of New York Press","series":"Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism"]}

Nous, the Concept of Ultimate Reality and Meaning in Anaxagoras, 1989
By: Silvestre, Maria Luisa
Title Nous, the Concept of Ultimate Reality and Meaning in Anaxagoras
Type Article
Language English
Date 1989
Journal Ultimate Reality and Meaning
Volume 12
Issue 4
Pages 248-255
Categories no categories
Author(s) Silvestre, Maria Luisa
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
That the world of Anaxagoras is without any soul entails that Nous is for him the ultimate reality. It is not the end of our life, but the origin of the world and of ourselves. It is that which brings life and at the same time that which gives human beings the possibility of knowing anything whatsoever. This is all that we can deduce from Plato and Aristotle's presentation of Anaxagoras' doctrine on Nous. Simplicius cites a passage in which we can see that Nous is infinite, has power over everything, and knows the past, the present, and even future time:

    While other things have a share of everything, Nous is infinite, self-governing, and has been mixed with nothing ... For it is the lightest of all things and the purest, and maintains complete understanding over everything and wields the greatest power. And Nous controls all, large and small, that has life ... and whatever sort of things were to be—what were and are no longer, what are, and what will be—Nous put all in order. (B12; Sider, 1981, p. 94).

We are not sure if Anaxagoras' Nous really was all that Simplicius attributes to it, but there can be no doubt that Simplicius, like Plato and every other interpreter of Anaxagoras' Nous, agrees that Nous is the ultimate reality in Anaxagoras' philosophy.

In our view, Anaxagoras' Nous can be described as a force originating in the interior of the All, which suddenly frees itself and introduces a movement that upsets, separates, aggregates, and distinguishes. Yet at the same time, it is a rational force of understanding, since its characteristic function—understanding—for Anaxagoras means nothing else but putting persons and things in their proper places in relation to each other. [conclusion p. 254-255]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1524","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1524,"authors_free":[{"id":2649,"entry_id":1524,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":404,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Silvestre, Maria Luisa","free_first_name":"Maria Luisa","free_last_name":"Silvestre","norm_person":{"id":404,"first_name":"Maria Luisa","last_name":"Silvestre","full_name":"Silvestre, Maria Luisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158446594","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Nous, the Concept of Ultimate Reality and Meaning in Anaxagoras","main_title":{"title":"Nous, the Concept of Ultimate Reality and Meaning in Anaxagoras"},"abstract":"That the world of Anaxagoras is without any soul entails that Nous is for him the ultimate reality. It is not the end of our life, but the origin of the world and of ourselves. It is that which brings life and at the same time that which gives human beings the possibility of knowing anything whatsoever. This is all that we can deduce from Plato and Aristotle's presentation of Anaxagoras' doctrine on Nous. Simplicius cites a passage in which we can see that Nous is infinite, has power over everything, and knows the past, the present, and even future time:\r\n\r\n While other things have a share of everything, Nous is infinite, self-governing, and has been mixed with nothing ... For it is the lightest of all things and the purest, and maintains complete understanding over everything and wields the greatest power. And Nous controls all, large and small, that has life ... and whatever sort of things were to be\u2014what were and are no longer, what are, and what will be\u2014Nous put all in order. (B12; Sider, 1981, p. 94).\r\n\r\nWe are not sure if Anaxagoras' Nous really was all that Simplicius attributes to it, but there can be no doubt that Simplicius, like Plato and every other interpreter of Anaxagoras' Nous, agrees that Nous is the ultimate reality in Anaxagoras' philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn our view, Anaxagoras' Nous can be described as a force originating in the interior of the All, which suddenly frees itself and introduces a movement that upsets, separates, aggregates, and distinguishes. Yet at the same time, it is a rational force of understanding, since its characteristic function\u2014understanding\u2014for Anaxagoras means nothing else but putting persons and things in their proper places in relation to each other. [conclusion p. 254-255]","btype":3,"date":" 1989","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WLkg0ul3k8yw6Tq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":404,"full_name":"Silvestre, Maria Luisa","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1524,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ultimate Reality and Meaning","volume":"12","issue":"4","pages":"248-255"}},"sort":["Nous, the Concept of Ultimate Reality and Meaning in Anaxagoras"]}

On Some Epicurean and Lucretian Arguments for the Infinity of the Universe, 1983
By: Avotins, Ivars
Title On Some Epicurean and Lucretian Arguments for the Infinity of the Universe
Type Article
Language English
Date 1983
Journal The Classical Quarterly
Volume 33
Issue 2
Pages 421-427
Categories no categories
Author(s) Avotins, Ivars
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
As is well known,  Epicurus and his followers held that the universe was infinite and 
that its  two  primary components,  void  and atoms,  were each infinite. The void  was 
infinite in extension, the atoms were infinite in number and their total was infinite also 
in extension.' The chief Epicurean proofs of these infinities are found in Epicurus, Ad 
Herod. 41-2,  and in Lucretius 1. 951-1020.  As far as I can see, both the commentators 
to these works and writers on Epicurean physics in general have neglected to take into 
account  some  material pertinent to  these  proofs,  material found  in  Aristotle  and 
especially in his commentators Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, Simplicius, and 
Philoponus.2 In  this  article I  wish  to  compare  this  neglected information  with  the 
proofs  of infinity found in Epicurus and Lucretius and to discuss their authorship. [p. 421]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1001","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1001,"authors_free":[{"id":1506,"entry_id":1001,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":38,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Avotins, Ivars","free_first_name":"Ivars","free_last_name":"Avotins","norm_person":{"id":38,"first_name":"Ivars","last_name":"Avotins","full_name":"Avotins, Ivars","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On Some Epicurean and Lucretian Arguments for the Infinity of the Universe","main_title":{"title":"On Some Epicurean and Lucretian Arguments for the Infinity of the Universe"},"abstract":"As is well known, Epicurus and his followers held that the universe was infinite and \r\nthat its two primary components, void and atoms, were each infinite. The void was \r\ninfinite in extension, the atoms were infinite in number and their total was infinite also \r\nin extension.' The chief Epicurean proofs of these infinities are found in Epicurus, Ad \r\nHerod. 41-2, and in Lucretius 1. 951-1020. As far as I can see, both the commentators \r\nto these works and writers on Epicurean physics in general have neglected to take into \r\naccount some material pertinent to these proofs, material found in Aristotle and \r\nespecially in his commentators Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, Simplicius, and \r\nPhiloponus.2 In this article I wish to compare this neglected information with the \r\nproofs of infinity found in Epicurus and Lucretius and to discuss their authorship. [p. 421]","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZJK8o9VUGwRqW5s","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":38,"full_name":"Avotins, Ivars","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1001,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"33","issue":"2","pages":"421-427"}},"sort":["On Some Epicurean and Lucretian Arguments for the Infinity of the Universe"]}

Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie, 1983
By: Verbeke, Gérard, Irmscher, Johannes (Ed.), Müller, Reimar (Ed.)
Title Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1983
Published in Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung
Pages 113-122
Categories no categories
Author(s) Verbeke, Gérard
Editor(s) Irmscher, Johannes , Müller, Reimar
Translator(s)
Der Text diskutiert die aristotelische Perspektive zu Ort und Raum sowie die Interpretationen, die Simplikios in späteren neuplatonischen Kommentaren dazu geliefert hat. Die Studie widmet sich drei Hauptfragen bezüglich des Orts: ob er ein Bestandteil von Körpern ist, ob er ein Zwischenraum zwischen umgebenden Körpern ist und welche Bedeutung der Ort hat und welchen Einfluss er auf die Dinge hat. Die aristotelische Physik strebt nach einer grundlegenden Erklärung der sinnlichen Welt und untersucht die Essenz der Bewegung, die Zusammensetzung physischer Körper, Notwendigkeit, Zufall, Unendlichkeit, Ort und Zeit. Der Artikel vergleicht zudem Physik und Metaphysik und betont, dass beide nach umfassenden Erklärungen der Realität streben. Die Untersuchung beleuchtet das aristotelische Verständnis von Ort und Raum und unterstreicht die Wechselwirkung zwischen Ort und der Struktur physischer Objekte. Es wird erörtert, ob Ort ein räumliches Substrat oder eine Form ist und welche Bedeutung die Lokalisierung und ihr Einfluss auf Körper haben. Spätere neuplatonische Kommentare, insbesondere die von Simplikios, haben Aristoteles' Ideen zu diesen Themen kritisch bewertet und weiterentwickelt. [Introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"451","_score":null,"_source":{"id":451,"authors_free":[{"id":605,"entry_id":451,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":606,"entry_id":451,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":352,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","free_first_name":"Johannes","free_last_name":"Irmscher","norm_person":{"id":352,"first_name":"Johannes","last_name":"Irmscher","full_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119489201","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":607,"entry_id":451,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":353,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","free_first_name":"Reimar","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":353,"first_name":"Reimar","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/106717707","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie","main_title":{"title":"Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie"},"abstract":"Der Text diskutiert die aristotelische Perspektive zu Ort und Raum sowie die Interpretationen, die Simplikios in sp\u00e4teren neuplatonischen Kommentaren dazu geliefert hat. Die Studie widmet sich drei Hauptfragen bez\u00fcglich des Orts: ob er ein Bestandteil von K\u00f6rpern ist, ob er ein Zwischenraum zwischen umgebenden K\u00f6rpern ist und welche Bedeutung der Ort hat und welchen Einfluss er auf die Dinge hat. Die aristotelische Physik strebt nach einer grundlegenden Erkl\u00e4rung der sinnlichen Welt und untersucht die Essenz der Bewegung, die Zusammensetzung physischer K\u00f6rper, Notwendigkeit, Zufall, Unendlichkeit, Ort und Zeit. Der Artikel vergleicht zudem Physik und Metaphysik und betont, dass beide nach umfassenden Erkl\u00e4rungen der Realit\u00e4t streben. Die Untersuchung beleuchtet das aristotelische Verst\u00e4ndnis von Ort und Raum und unterstreicht die Wechselwirkung zwischen Ort und der Struktur physischer Objekte. Es wird er\u00f6rtert, ob Ort ein r\u00e4umliches Substrat oder eine Form ist und welche Bedeutung die Lokalisierung und ihr Einfluss auf K\u00f6rper haben. Sp\u00e4tere neuplatonische Kommentare, insbesondere die von Simplikios, haben Aristoteles' Ideen zu diesen Themen kritisch bewertet und weiterentwickelt. [Introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1983","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gefH5Atxe7LieDs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":352,"full_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":353,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":451,"section_of":325,"pages":"113-122","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":325,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Irmscher_M\u00fcller1983","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1983","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1983","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A1XXLVpd3w2XvXY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":325,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Akademie-Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie"]}

PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus, 1974
By: Wiesner, Jürgen
Title PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus
Type Monograph
Language German
Date 1974
Publication Place Amsterdam
Publisher Hakkert
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"2","_score":null,"_source":{"id":2,"authors_free":[{"id":1821,"entry_id":2,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","main_title":{"title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus"]}

Paratasis. De la description aspectuelle des verbes grecs à une définition du temps dans le néoplatonisme tardif, 1983
By: Hoffmann, Philippe
Title Paratasis. De la description aspectuelle des verbes grecs à une définition du temps dans le néoplatonisme tardif
Type Article
Language French
Date 1983
Journal Revue des Études Grecques
Volume 96
Issue 455/459
Pages 1-26
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Ainsi, le concept de paralasis est profondément solidaire d’un thème qui est au cœur de la pensée de Damascius : la distinction entre ce qui est en train de se différencier et ce dont la différenciation est achevée. C’est aussi la distinction entre la procession et la conversion, entre la puissance et l’activité, entre la vie et l’intellect, entre le second diacosme (intelligible et intellectif) et le troisième (intellectif) : dans tous ces couples, le premier terme se distingue du second comme, dans Physique VI, « l’action de se mouvoir se distingue du mouvement accompli » (95).

Aristote est la source avouée de Damascius, qui lui consacrait des cours (on sait par exemple que le premier livre du Commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo a vraisemblablement été rédigé à partir de notes prises au cours de Damascius) (96) : il « pense le temps à la fois à partir du Parménide de Platon et à partir des livres IV et VI de la Physique d’Aristote. C’est à la lumière d’Aristote qu’il interprète Platon. C’est à Aristote lui-même qu’il emprunte les éléments de sa résolution des apories posées en Physique IV. Et la clé de sa doctrine du temps est à chercher en Physique VI » (97).

Il faut ajouter immédiatement que c’est à partir de la pensée stoïcienne du temps que Damascius lit Physique VI et élabore sa théorie du « temps intégral ». Le « temps intégral », qui demeure « tout entier à la fois dans la subsistance », est pensé selon l’être-ensemble de ses parties. Analogue au maintenant diastèmatique, qui est partie et non limite du temps, il a pour image le présent de la danse, en qui passé et futur sont contenus et résorbés : bien qu’elle se déroute dans une succession, la danse est présentement en train d’être dansée (98), et c’est sur le même mode que le combat est lui aussi présent.

La subsistance d’un tel présent se fonde sur l’unité d’une action en devenir, qui s’exprime par un verbe au présent extensif. L’influence du stoïcisme sur Damascius semble déterminante : on reconnaît sans peine dans ses analyses le présent étendu qui est le présent sensible de l’expérience pratique, celui en qui vient se loger une action comme « je marche » (action portée à élocution par un présent extensif) ; et son « temps intégral » n’est pas sans analogie avec le mode de présence de la période cosmique stoïcienne (99).

À cette influence philosophique du stoïcisme, il faut ajouter son influence grammaticale. Damascius fut pendant neuf ans professeur de rhétorique. C’est sans aucun doute à cette longue pratique des textes et des mots qu’il faut rapporter l’attention extrême qu’il prête au langage, ainsi que la thématisation des problèmes du langage au sein même de sa pensée philosophique (100). C’est à une grammaire d’inspiration stoïcienne qu’il faut rapporter sa méthode d’exégèse, ou plutôt le contenu de son exégèse de Physique IV (221 a 6-9) : l’infinitif être, compris comme activité d’être, est envisagé dans l’extension aspectuelle, et Damascius le considère comme l’équivalent de paratasis tou einai. Cette explication de texte scrupuleuse, qui est bien dans la manière de Damascius, permet à celui-ci de proposer sa définition du temps, tout en soulignant sa fidélité par rapport à la double autorité d’Archytas et d’Aristote. [conclusion p. 23-25]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"713","_score":null,"_source":{"id":713,"authors_free":[{"id":1063,"entry_id":713,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Paratasis. De la description aspectuelle des verbes grecs \u00e0 une d\u00e9finition du temps dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif","main_title":{"title":"Paratasis. De la description aspectuelle des verbes grecs \u00e0 une d\u00e9finition du temps dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif"},"abstract":"Ainsi, le concept de paralasis est profond\u00e9ment solidaire d\u2019un th\u00e8me qui est au c\u0153ur de la pens\u00e9e de Damascius : la distinction entre ce qui est en train de se diff\u00e9rencier et ce dont la diff\u00e9renciation est achev\u00e9e. C\u2019est aussi la distinction entre la procession et la conversion, entre la puissance et l\u2019activit\u00e9, entre la vie et l\u2019intellect, entre le second diacosme (intelligible et intellectif) et le troisi\u00e8me (intellectif) : dans tous ces couples, le premier terme se distingue du second comme, dans Physique VI, \u00ab l\u2019action de se mouvoir se distingue du mouvement accompli \u00bb (95).\r\n\r\nAristote est la source avou\u00e9e de Damascius, qui lui consacrait des cours (on sait par exemple que le premier livre du Commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo a vraisemblablement \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9dig\u00e9 \u00e0 partir de notes prises au cours de Damascius) (96) : il \u00ab pense le temps \u00e0 la fois \u00e0 partir du Parm\u00e9nide de Platon et \u00e0 partir des livres IV et VI de la Physique d\u2019Aristote. C\u2019est \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re d\u2019Aristote qu\u2019il interpr\u00e8te Platon. C\u2019est \u00e0 Aristote lui-m\u00eame qu\u2019il emprunte les \u00e9l\u00e9ments de sa r\u00e9solution des apories pos\u00e9es en Physique IV. Et la cl\u00e9 de sa doctrine du temps est \u00e0 chercher en Physique VI \u00bb (97).\r\n\r\nIl faut ajouter imm\u00e9diatement que c\u2019est \u00e0 partir de la pens\u00e9e sto\u00efcienne du temps que Damascius lit Physique VI et \u00e9labore sa th\u00e9orie du \u00ab temps int\u00e9gral \u00bb. Le \u00ab temps int\u00e9gral \u00bb, qui demeure \u00ab tout entier \u00e0 la fois dans la subsistance \u00bb, est pens\u00e9 selon l\u2019\u00eatre-ensemble de ses parties. Analogue au maintenant diast\u00e8matique, qui est partie et non limite du temps, il a pour image le pr\u00e9sent de la danse, en qui pass\u00e9 et futur sont contenus et r\u00e9sorb\u00e9s : bien qu\u2019elle se d\u00e9route dans une succession, la danse est pr\u00e9sentement en train d\u2019\u00eatre dans\u00e9e (98), et c\u2019est sur le m\u00eame mode que le combat est lui aussi pr\u00e9sent.\r\n\r\nLa subsistance d\u2019un tel pr\u00e9sent se fonde sur l\u2019unit\u00e9 d\u2019une action en devenir, qui s\u2019exprime par un verbe au pr\u00e9sent extensif. L\u2019influence du sto\u00efcisme sur Damascius semble d\u00e9terminante : on reconna\u00eet sans peine dans ses analyses le pr\u00e9sent \u00e9tendu qui est le pr\u00e9sent sensible de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience pratique, celui en qui vient se loger une action comme \u00ab je marche \u00bb (action port\u00e9e \u00e0 \u00e9locution par un pr\u00e9sent extensif) ; et son \u00ab temps int\u00e9gral \u00bb n\u2019est pas sans analogie avec le mode de pr\u00e9sence de la p\u00e9riode cosmique sto\u00efcienne (99).\r\n\r\n\u00c0 cette influence philosophique du sto\u00efcisme, il faut ajouter son influence grammaticale. Damascius fut pendant neuf ans professeur de rh\u00e9torique. C\u2019est sans aucun doute \u00e0 cette longue pratique des textes et des mots qu\u2019il faut rapporter l\u2019attention extr\u00eame qu\u2019il pr\u00eate au langage, ainsi que la th\u00e9matisation des probl\u00e8mes du langage au sein m\u00eame de sa pens\u00e9e philosophique (100). C\u2019est \u00e0 une grammaire d\u2019inspiration sto\u00efcienne qu\u2019il faut rapporter sa m\u00e9thode d\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, ou plut\u00f4t le contenu de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Physique IV (221 a 6-9) : l\u2019infinitif \u00eatre, compris comme activit\u00e9 d\u2019\u00eatre, est envisag\u00e9 dans l\u2019extension aspectuelle, et Damascius le consid\u00e8re comme l\u2019\u00e9quivalent de paratasis tou einai. Cette explication de texte scrupuleuse, qui est bien dans la mani\u00e8re de Damascius, permet \u00e0 celui-ci de proposer sa d\u00e9finition du temps, tout en soulignant sa fid\u00e9lit\u00e9 par rapport \u00e0 la double autorit\u00e9 d\u2019Archytas et d\u2019Aristote. [conclusion p. 23-25]","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LNb8H8UiMDNsVyS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":713,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques","volume":"96","issue":"455\/459","pages":"1-26"}},"sort":["Paratasis. De la description aspectuelle des verbes grecs \u00e0 une d\u00e9finition du temps dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif"]}

Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5, 1971
By: Whittaker, John H.
Title Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1971
Published in God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy
Pages 16-32
Categories no categories
Author(s) Whittaker, John H.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
I would conclude that no knowledge of the teaching of the historical 
Parmenides  can  be  safely derived from  the  versions  of fr.  8, 5  which 
have survived.  One can, however, assert with complete conviction,  as 
was shown at the outset, that the doctrine of non-durational eternity, 
which Neoplatonists associated with both versions of the line, was not 
taught by the historical Parmenides. [conclusion p. 24]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"439","_score":null,"_source":{"id":439,"authors_free":[{"id":589,"entry_id":439,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":411,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Whittaker, John H.","free_first_name":"John H.","free_last_name":"Whittaker","norm_person":{"id":411,"first_name":"John H.","last_name":"Whittaker","full_name":"Whittaker, John H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124441203","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5"},"abstract":"I would conclude that no knowledge of the teaching of the historical \r\nParmenides can be safely derived from the versions of fr. 8, 5 which \r\nhave survived. One can, however, assert with complete conviction, as \r\nwas shown at the outset, that the doctrine of non-durational eternity, \r\nwhich Neoplatonists associated with both versions of the line, was not \r\ntaught by the historical Parmenides. [conclusion p. 24]","btype":2,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/otytaZVpHsVfMmh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":411,"full_name":"Whittaker, John H.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":439,"section_of":144,"pages":"16-32","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":144,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Whittaker1971b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1971","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1971","abstract":"Es geht um die im Platonismus entwickelte Vorstellung einer Gottheit eigenen\r\nzeitlosen, zeit3berlegenen Ewigkeit, die von Plotin aus (Enneaden III 7) die abend-\r\nlindische Theologie und Mystik stark beeinfluf3t hat. Zugrunde liegt Platons\r\nSpekulation 3ber Aion und Chronos, Timaios 73 c-38 c; ausformuliert ist die\r\nThese vom ewigen Jetzt fur unsere Kenntnis erstmals im mittleren Platonismus\r\n(Plutarch, De E ap. Delph. 393 A-C). Doch hat sie der Neuplatonismus - sicher-\r\nlich zu Unrecht - bereits in ein beruhmtes Parmenides-Fragment (8, 5 D.-Kr., wo\r\nes vom Sein heift, dag ,alles jetzt zusammen ist\", nach U. Hoelscher) hinein-\r\ngelesen. Der Verf., der diese Oberlieferungsverhiltnisse klarend darlegt, unterzieht\r\ndas Fragment im ersten Teil seiner Arbeit einer scharfsinnigen, reich dokumen-\r\ntierten Analyse. Dabei wird die Ansicht begrundet, dai3 die Texte unserer spht-\r\nantiken Zeugen (Simplikios einerseits, die vier alexandrinischen Ausleger andrer-\r\nseits) nicht iber jeden Zweifel erhaben sind. Es k6nnte sein, daf3 bei Simplikios\r\n- dem die modernen Ausgaben zu folgen pflegen - eine neuplatonische Adaption\r\ndes parmenideischen Wortlauts vorliegt, so daf die uberlieferte Form von Parm.\r\n8, 5 fur die Ermittlung der Lehre des grof3enEleaten ausscheiden muf3te - ein fur\r\ndie Vorsokratikerforschung recht erhebliches Ergebnis. - In einer zweiten Unter-\r\nsuchung geht der Verf. dem gleichen Motiv (,Gottes ewiges Heute': der Leser der\r\naugustinischen Confessionen hat es aus dem grofartigen Lobpreis XI 13 in Erinne-\r\nrung) bei Philon von Alexandria nach, wobei sich ein belehrender Einblick in die\r\nplatonistisdhe Tradition ergibt (verwunderlich, daf3 Clemens von Alexandria nach\r\nMigne's Patrologie, Maximos von Tyros nach der alten Dibner'sdlen Ausgabe\r\nzitiert werden). Auch aristotelische und stoische Einflusse werden gepruft. W. stellt\r\nfest, daf3 die meisten Philonstellen, die man bisher im Sinn der neuplatonischen\r\nLehre von einer zeit\u00fcberlegenen Ewigkeit gedeutet hatte, anders zu erklaren\r\nsind; eine Ausnahme scheint in einer allegorischen Auslegung des Alten Testaments\r\n(zu Levit. 2, 14) vorzuliegen (de sacrif. 76). Es bleibt dabei, daf3 das weitreidiende\r\nThema in voller Klarheit erstmals in Plutarchs ob. gen. Dialog angesprochen wird;\r\ner hangt sicher mit dem seit Ende des 1. Jh. v. Chr. wieder rege gewordenen\r\nStudium des platonischen Timaios zusammen, welches in dem Kommentar des\r\nAlexandriners Eudoros, eines pythagoreisierenden Platonikers, moglicherweiseeine\r\nQuelle Plutarchs hervorgebracht hat (hier ware auf eine den Problemen des mitt-\r\nleren Platonismus gewidmete Arbeit H. Dbrrie's hinzuweisen gewesen, in: Les\r\nSourdes de Plotin, Entresiens sur L'Antiquite Classique, t. V, 1957 193 it).\" (Review, H. Strohm)","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gmCTvOKY6YxDRe4","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":144,"pubplace":"Oslo","publisher":"Universitetsforlaget","series":"Symbolae Osloenses","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5"]}

Parménide d'Élée chez les Néoplatoniciens, 1987
By: Guérard, Christian, Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Parménide d'Élée chez les Néoplatoniciens
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Études sur Parménide, Tome II: Problèmes d’interprétation
Pages 294-313
Categories no categories
Author(s) Guérard, Christian
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)
«Le néoplatonisme, écrit J. Trouillard, succède au ‘moyen platonisme’ le jour où les platoniciens se mettent à chercher dans le Parménide le secret de la philosophie de Platon»¹. Effectivement, en paraphrasant Proclus, on peut même dire que la lecture néoplatonicienne du dialogue, et avant tout de la première hypothèse, est le Néoplatonisme lui-même².

Sans revenir davantage sur le rôle considérable du Parménide chez Plotin³, bornons-nous à rappeler qu’il a été commenté de façon systématique par Porphyre⁴, puis, comme en témoigne Proclus⁵, par Amélius, Théodore d’Asiné, Jamblique, l’obscur philosophe de Rhodes, Plutarque d’Athènes et Syrianus. À son tour, le Lycien a rédigé un commentaire probablement complet du dialogue qu’il a repris dans son ouvrage final, la Théologie platonicienne. De même, les deux œuvres rassemblées par C.E. Ruelle sous le titre Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis in Platonis Parmenidem⁶ montrent l’importance du dialogue chez Damascius.

Cette relecture du Parménide a posé bien des questions aux historiens de la philosophie. On a alors invoqué l’influence d’idées orientales. Il fallait, semble-t-il, excuser des esprits aussi exceptionnels d’avoir « sombré dans l’irrationalisme ». Une telle attitude, déjà fort visible chez V. Cousin⁷, l’éditeur même de Proclus, malheureusement demeure⁸.

En fait, chez Plotin, l’orientalisme se limiterait au plus à l’aspiration mystique⁹ : la définition du Bien (épékeina tês ousias) est dans la République, VI 509B9, et les spéculations néopythagoriciennes avaient reconnu dans l’Un du Parménide le Principe de tout¹⁰. Il ne restait qu’à faire le lien, peut-être en retrouvant ainsi la pensée de Speusippe¹¹, mais, sans aucun doute, en s’opposant au platonisme de l’époque.

Au IIᵉ siècle notamment, le Parménide était considéré comme une œuvre « logique », un exercice éristique ou un pastiche de la sophistique mégarique. C’était l’opinion des aristotéliciens dont Alexandre d’Aphrodise¹², et aussi celle d’Albinus¹³, par exemple. Pour presque tous¹⁴, le dialogue n’était qu’un jeu discursif employant la méthode des Topiques d’Aristote¹⁵. Il était admis qu’il s’agissait d’une réfutation de l’éléatisme, et, dans la première hypothèse en particulier, d’une réplique ironique de Gorgias¹⁶.

La conception néoplatonicienne n’était pas très aisée à soutenir : si le dialogue porte sur des réalités sublimes, pourquoi les faire exposer par Parménide ? D’ailleurs, l’hypothèse est-elle celle de l’Éléate¹⁷ ? Enfin, connaissait-il l’Un avant l’être et la théologie négative ? Comment donc admettre que le dialogue puisse révéler les choses les plus hautes si le Parménide du Poème n’a rien à voir avec le personnage de Platon ?

Devant ces questions, la figure de l’Éléate prenait un relief nouveau nécessitant à son tour une lecture nouvelle. Nous allons tenter de montrer comment, principalement chez Plotin et Proclus, Parménide allait s’inscrire dans la perspective historique propre au néoplatonisme, et qui, d’une certaine manière, le définit. [introduction p.  294-295]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"530","_score":null,"_source":{"id":530,"authors_free":[{"id":746,"entry_id":530,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":150,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gu\u00e9rard, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Gu\u00e9rard","norm_person":{"id":150,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Gu\u00e9rard","full_name":"Gu\u00e9rard, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":747,"entry_id":530,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parm\u00e9nide d'\u00c9l\u00e9e chez les N\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"Parm\u00e9nide d'\u00c9l\u00e9e chez les N\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"\u00abLe n\u00e9oplatonisme, \u00e9crit J. Trouillard, succ\u00e8de au \u2018moyen platonisme\u2019 le jour o\u00f9 les platoniciens se mettent \u00e0 chercher dans le Parm\u00e9nide le secret de la philosophie de Platon\u00bb\u00b9. Effectivement, en paraphrasant Proclus, on peut m\u00eame dire que la lecture n\u00e9oplatonicienne du dialogue, et avant tout de la premi\u00e8re hypoth\u00e8se, est le N\u00e9oplatonisme lui-m\u00eame\u00b2.\r\n\r\nSans revenir davantage sur le r\u00f4le consid\u00e9rable du Parm\u00e9nide chez Plotin\u00b3, bornons-nous \u00e0 rappeler qu\u2019il a \u00e9t\u00e9 comment\u00e9 de fa\u00e7on syst\u00e9matique par Porphyre\u2074, puis, comme en t\u00e9moigne Proclus\u2075, par Am\u00e9lius, Th\u00e9odore d\u2019Asin\u00e9, Jamblique, l\u2019obscur philosophe de Rhodes, Plutarque d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes et Syrianus. \u00c0 son tour, le Lycien a r\u00e9dig\u00e9 un commentaire probablement complet du dialogue qu\u2019il a repris dans son ouvrage final, la Th\u00e9ologie platonicienne. De m\u00eame, les deux \u0153uvres rassembl\u00e9es par C.E. Ruelle sous le titre Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis in Platonis Parmenidem\u2076 montrent l\u2019importance du dialogue chez Damascius.\r\n\r\nCette relecture du Parm\u00e9nide a pos\u00e9 bien des questions aux historiens de la philosophie. On a alors invoqu\u00e9 l\u2019influence d\u2019id\u00e9es orientales. Il fallait, semble-t-il, excuser des esprits aussi exceptionnels d\u2019avoir \u00ab sombr\u00e9 dans l\u2019irrationalisme \u00bb. Une telle attitude, d\u00e9j\u00e0 fort visible chez V. Cousin\u2077, l\u2019\u00e9diteur m\u00eame de Proclus, malheureusement demeure\u2078.\r\n\r\nEn fait, chez Plotin, l\u2019orientalisme se limiterait au plus \u00e0 l\u2019aspiration mystique\u2079 : la d\u00e9finition du Bien (\u00e9p\u00e9keina t\u00eas ousias) est dans la R\u00e9publique, VI 509B9, et les sp\u00e9culations n\u00e9opythagoriciennes avaient reconnu dans l\u2019Un du Parm\u00e9nide le Principe de tout\u00b9\u2070. Il ne restait qu\u2019\u00e0 faire le lien, peut-\u00eatre en retrouvant ainsi la pens\u00e9e de Speusippe\u00b9\u00b9, mais, sans aucun doute, en s\u2019opposant au platonisme de l\u2019\u00e9poque.\r\n\r\nAu II\u1d49 si\u00e8cle notamment, le Parm\u00e9nide \u00e9tait consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme une \u0153uvre \u00ab logique \u00bb, un exercice \u00e9ristique ou un pastiche de la sophistique m\u00e9garique. C\u2019\u00e9tait l\u2019opinion des aristot\u00e9liciens dont Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise\u00b9\u00b2, et aussi celle d\u2019Albinus\u00b9\u00b3, par exemple. Pour presque tous\u00b9\u2074, le dialogue n\u2019\u00e9tait qu\u2019un jeu discursif employant la m\u00e9thode des Topiques d\u2019Aristote\u00b9\u2075. Il \u00e9tait admis qu\u2019il s\u2019agissait d\u2019une r\u00e9futation de l\u2019\u00e9l\u00e9atisme, et, dans la premi\u00e8re hypoth\u00e8se en particulier, d\u2019une r\u00e9plique ironique de Gorgias\u00b9\u2076.\r\n\r\nLa conception n\u00e9oplatonicienne n\u2019\u00e9tait pas tr\u00e8s ais\u00e9e \u00e0 soutenir : si le dialogue porte sur des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s sublimes, pourquoi les faire exposer par Parm\u00e9nide ? D\u2019ailleurs, l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se est-elle celle de l\u2019\u00c9l\u00e9ate\u00b9\u2077 ? Enfin, connaissait-il l\u2019Un avant l\u2019\u00eatre et la th\u00e9ologie n\u00e9gative ? Comment donc admettre que le dialogue puisse r\u00e9v\u00e9ler les choses les plus hautes si le Parm\u00e9nide du Po\u00e8me n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec le personnage de Platon ?\r\n\r\nDevant ces questions, la figure de l\u2019\u00c9l\u00e9ate prenait un relief nouveau n\u00e9cessitant \u00e0 son tour une lecture nouvelle. Nous allons tenter de montrer comment, principalement chez Plotin et Proclus, Parm\u00e9nide allait s\u2019inscrire dans la perspective historique propre au n\u00e9oplatonisme, et qui, d\u2019une certaine mani\u00e8re, le d\u00e9finit. [introduction p. 294-295]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8WXrV6XuPyldosH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":150,"full_name":"Gu\u00e9rard, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":530,"section_of":372,"pages":"294-313","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":372,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"\u00c9tudes sur Parm\u00e9nide, Tome II: Probl\u00e8mes d\u2019interpr\u00e9tation","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ojgpMQbpMPY4GeV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":372,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Parm\u00e9nide d'\u00c9l\u00e9e chez les N\u00e9oplatoniciens"]}

Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, 1987
By: Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1987
Publication Place Ithaca, New York
Publisher Cornell University Press
Edition No. 1
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng  chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1383","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1383,"authors_free":[{"id":2134,"entry_id":1383,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science"},"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","btype":4,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science"]}

Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics, 1987
By: Wolff, Michael, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science
Pages 84-120
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wolff, Michael
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
If we are prepared to assume that the basic presuppositions of impetus theory 
can be traced back not to observational  experience which  Aristotle  missed, 
but rather to a certain concept of man and to certain ethical  principles,  we 
need not attempt to explain the emergence of the theory solely by reference to 
new observations of falling bodies and the like.  Is it not more appropriate to 
ask  about  the  origin  and  kind  of  ethical  problem  to  which  impetus  theory 
originally  helped  to  provide  an  answer?  The  experience  that  forces  are 
exhausted in all physical activities of human beings could have been just such 
a  problem.  Earlier society,  which  had  left  this  experience  chiefly  to  slaves, 
could not  really  have  had  such  a  problem.  But,  by  the close  of Antiquity, 
times were changing. [Conclusion p. 120]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"720","_score":null,"_source":{"id":720,"authors_free":[{"id":1073,"entry_id":720,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":364,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wolff, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Wolff","norm_person":{"id":364,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Wolff","full_name":"Wolff, Michael","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131523120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1074,"entry_id":720,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics"},"abstract":"If we are prepared to assume that the basic presuppositions of impetus theory \r\ncan be traced back not to observational experience which Aristotle missed, \r\nbut rather to a certain concept of man and to certain ethical principles, we \r\nneed not attempt to explain the emergence of the theory solely by reference to \r\nnew observations of falling bodies and the like. Is it not more appropriate to \r\nask about the origin and kind of ethical problem to which impetus theory \r\noriginally helped to provide an answer? The experience that forces are \r\nexhausted in all physical activities of human beings could have been just such \r\na problem. Earlier society, which had left this experience chiefly to slaves, \r\ncould not really have had such a problem. But, by the close of Antiquity, \r\ntimes were changing. [Conclusion p. 120]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/L1tFbjfO8UrPnAp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":364,"full_name":"Wolff, Michael","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":720,"section_of":1383,"pages":"84-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics"]}

Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century, 1987
By: Schmitt, Charles Bernard, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition
Pages 210-230
Categories no categories
Author(s) Schmitt, Charles Bernard
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
As it is generally accepted, the term ‘Renaissance’ refers to a historical period in which there was a revival of interest in the literature, styles, and forms of Classical Antiquity. Though the ‘revival’ is usually understood to refer specifically to ancient ‘literary’ texts, there can be no doubt that the specialized technical treatises of philosophy, natural science, mathematics, and medicine played a role equally important, if not more important, in the cultural and intellectual life of the Renaissance. In addition to the rediscovery of the integral texts of Homer and the Greek dramatists, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, Quintilian, and Lucretius, the fifteenth century also saw the recovery of much of Galen, Theophrastus, Plato, Plotinus, and Proclus, Pappus, Diogenes Laertius, and Sextus Empiricus, as well as many additional classical authors of specialized literature. Indeed, the ‘Renaissance’ was a revival of the technical knowledge bequeathed by Antiquity as much as of works of recognized literary and rhetorical quality.

One aspect of the influence of ancient literature on the Renaissance which has received little attention until fairly recently is the role of the Greek commentators on Aristotle. In that vast corpus, most of which is conveniently assembled for us in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, there is a wealth of interpretative and supplementary material, which is of great use not only for an understanding of the Aristotelian text itself but also for understanding its historical context and the philosophical positions that were in competition with those of Aristotle in antiquity. A certain number of the Greek commentaries were known in the Middle Ages, both in the Islamic and in the Christian worlds, but such knowledge was very fragmentary. Only a small portion of the extant commentaries was available in Latin before the sixteenth century. Some of these attained a degree of importance and played a central role in the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century discussions of the soul, for example. These medieval versions are presently being edited in a critical fashion by a group of scholars at Louvain; this series should take its place alongside the Greek texts produced in the last century by the Berlin Academy of Sciences. So far, editions of commentaries by Themistius, Ammonius, Philoponus, Simplicius, Alexander, and Eustratius have appeared.

But it remained for the sixteenth century to make accessible most of the material. For example, less than half of the works attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias contained in the CAG and Supplementum Aristotelicum were available in the Middle Ages, and, among the expositions of Philoponus, only the commentary on the De Anima was available.

The need for a comprehensive publication of all of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle was already noted and made a program for the future in Aldo Manuzio’s prefatory letter to the first volume of his editio princeps of Aristotle in 1495. Although Aldo himself did not live to achieve his aim, he did initiate it, and between that date and 1540 nearly the entire Greek corpus was made available to European scholars. Parallel with the publication of the Greek texts—and generally delayed by only a few years—was the publication of Latin translations of the same texts, thus making the material accessible to a much wider readership than the rather restricted group who could cope effectively with the Greek text of the commentators. Most of the Greek editions themselves, as well as the majority of the translations, issued from Venetian presses, though Paris and Lyon served as secondary publication centers. By mid-century essentially everything could be read in Latin, and the impact of the new material can be traced in the Aristotelian literature of the period.

In reading the many commentaries on Aristotle and other philosophical works of the sixteenth century, one clearly discerns the rising tide of interest in these expositions across a spectrum of philosophical and scientific topics. Hitherto, the impact of these new sources of information has only imperfectly been charted, primarily with regard to discussions of the soul. Nardi’s fundamental work on Simplicius, the more recent studies on Alexander by Cranz, and on the general Neoplatonism of the commentaries by Mahoney have served to draw attention to the rich vein of material there to be mined. The range of the impact—in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, and psychology—has scarcely been charted, nor has the interplay between Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, and medieval and Renaissance Latin interpretations of Aristotle been evaluated and analyzed.

During the second half of the sixteenth century, those who wanted to understand Aristotle—which for them meant philosophy tout court—frequently tried to relate the text of the Stagirite to the varying interpretations of Philoponus, Simplicius, Averroes (1126–98), Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–74), John of Jandun (died 1328), Pomponazzi (1462–1525), and Soto (1494/5–1560), among many others.

Particularly little studied has been the impact of the newly available Greek commentators on the Physics. Here is meant primarily Simplicius and Philoponus, both of whom left behind extensive and detailed expositions of that work, neither of which was known directly to Latin writers of the Middle Ages but which were to become available in the sixteenth century. As long ago as Wohlwill and Duhem, it has been known that some of the criticisms and alternative positions put forward in the commentaries on the Physics by the two sixth-century writers later attained importance in the history of the development of physical thought. Moreover, it was also realized by the same historians that the critiques of Aristotle put forward by Simplicius and Philoponus were very similar to some of the positions that became central in the formulation of the ‘new science’ of the seventeenth century.

Thus far, however, there has been little systematic attempt to consider the reaction of the sixteenth century as a whole to the reorientation made possible by the availability of Simplicius and Philoponus. The story is not simple, and it cannot be covered comprehensively here, though I hope to be able to indicate some lines further research might take. What I shall do is to focus upon Philoponus, whose significance in the story is possibly less than that of Simplicius, but without a full story of the fortune of the Physics of both authors a valid conclusion regarding their relative merits is not possible.

Before turning to a consideration of the impact of the Grammarian’s partial commentary on the Physics (only the first four books are integrally extant), I should like to deal briefly with two other points. First, I should like to sketch a portrait of Philoponus as a commentator, emphasizing why what he had to say was of potential importance for the sixteenth century. Secondly, I shall say something general about the recovery and assimilation of his philosophical works in the West down to the sixteenth century. [introduction p. 210-213]

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

Philoponus: Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World, 1987
By: Philoponos, Johannes,
Title Philoponus: Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1987
Publication Place London
Publisher Duckworth
Series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories no categories
Author(s) Philoponos, Johannes
Editor(s)
Translator(s) Wildberg, Christian(Wildberg, Christian)
Philoponus' treatise Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World, an attack on Aristotle's astronomy and theology is concerned mainly with the eternity and divinity of the fifth element, or 'quintessence', of which Aristotle took the stars to be composed. Pagans and Christians were divided on whether the world had a beginning, and on whether a belief that the heavens were divine was a mark of religion. Philoponus claimed on behalf of Christianity that the universe was not eternal. His most spectacular arguments, where wrung paradox out of the pagan belief in an infinite past, have been wrongly credited by historians of science to a period 700 years later. The treatise was to influence Islamic, Jewish, Byzantine and Latin thought, though the fifth element was defended against Philoponus even beyond the time of Copernicus. The influence of the treatise was not easy to trace before the fragments were assembled. Dr. Wildberg has brought them together for the first time and provided a summary which makes coherent sense of the whole. He has also studied a Syriac fragment, which reveals that the treatise originally contained an explicitly theological section on the Christian expectation of a new heaven and a new earth. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"42","_score":null,"_source":{"id":42,"authors_free":[{"id":49,"entry_id":42,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":439,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Philoponos, Johannes","free_first_name":"Johannes","free_last_name":"Philoponos","norm_person":{"id":439,"first_name":"Johannes","last_name":"Philoponos","full_name":"Philoponos, Johannes ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2296,"entry_id":42,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus: Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus: Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World"},"abstract":"Philoponus' treatise Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World, an attack on Aristotle's astronomy and theology is concerned mainly with the eternity and divinity of the fifth element, or 'quintessence', of which Aristotle took the stars to be composed. Pagans and Christians were divided on whether the world had a beginning, and on whether a belief that the heavens were divine was a mark of religion. Philoponus claimed on behalf of Christianity that the universe was not eternal. His most spectacular arguments, where wrung paradox out of the pagan belief in an infinite past, have been wrongly credited by historians of science to a period 700 years later. The treatise was to influence Islamic, Jewish, Byzantine and Latin thought, though the fifth element was defended against Philoponus even beyond the time of Copernicus. The influence of the treatise was not easy to trace before the fragments were assembled. Dr. Wildberg has brought them together for the first time and provided a summary which makes coherent sense of the whole. He has also studied a Syriac fragment, which reveals that the treatise originally contained an explicitly theological section on the Christian expectation of a new heaven and a new earth. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8Iylo91nPxiKHhJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":439,"full_name":"Philoponos, Johannes ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":42,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Philoponus: Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World"]}

Pietro d’Abano e l’utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele, 1989
By: Federici-Vescovini, Graziella, Brams, Jozef (Ed.), Vanhamel, Willy (Ed.)
Title Pietro d’Abano e l’utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele
Type Book Section
Language Italian
Date 1989
Published in Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)
Pages 83-112
Categories no categories
Author(s) Federici-Vescovini, Graziella
Editor(s) Brams, Jozef , Vanhamel, Willy
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1136","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1136,"authors_free":[{"id":1710,"entry_id":1136,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":487,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Federici-Vescovini, Graziella","free_first_name":"Graziella","free_last_name":"Federici-Vescovini","norm_person":{"id":487,"first_name":"Graziella","last_name":"Federici-Vescovini","full_name":"Federici-Vescovini, Graziella","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128950552","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2478,"entry_id":1136,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":337,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brams, Jozef","free_first_name":"Jozef","free_last_name":"Brams","norm_person":{"id":337,"first_name":"Jozef","last_name":"Brams","full_name":"Brams, Jozef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145645712","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2479,"entry_id":1136,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":338,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","free_first_name":"Willy","free_last_name":"Vanhamel","norm_person":{"id":338,"first_name":"Willy","last_name":"Vanhamel","full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141109661","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pietro d\u2019Abano e l\u2019utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele","main_title":{"title":"Pietro d\u2019Abano e l\u2019utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Km4PwTvVAXA9uOv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":487,"full_name":"Federici-Vescovini, Graziella","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":337,"full_name":"Brams, Jozef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":338,"full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1136,"section_of":326,"pages":"83-112","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":326,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brams1989","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"T h e following articles are included in this volume: \"Moerbeke, traducteur et inter-\r\nprete: Un texte et une pensee\" by Gerard Verbeke (pp. 1-21); \"Guillaume de Moer-\r\nbeke et la cour pontificale\" by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (pp. 23-52); \"Note con-\r\ncernant certaines missions qui auraient ete confiees a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by\r\nWilly Vanhamel (pp. 53-56); \"Guillaume de Moerbeke et saint Thomas\" by Carlos\r\nSteel (pp. 57-82); \"Pietro d'Abano e l'utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di\r\nMoerbeke del commento di Simplicio al \/\/ De caelo di Aristotele\" by Graziella Federici\r\nVescovini (pp. 83-106); \"Quelques utilisateurs des textes rares de Moerbeke\r\n(Philopon, Tria opuscula) et particulierement Jacques de Viterbe\" by Louis Jacques\r\nBataillon (pp. 107-12); \"Quelques remarques codicologiques et paleographiques\r\nau sujet du ms. Vaticano Ottob. lat. 1850\" by Robert Wielockx (pp. 113-33);\r\n\"La liste des ceuvres d'Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr. 100: Un\r\nautographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 135-83);\r\n\"Note concernant la collation d'un deuxieme manuscrit grec de la Physique\r\npar Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Jozef Brams and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp.\r\n185-92); \"La 'Recensio Matritensis' de la Physique\" by Jozef Brams (pp. 193-220);\r\n\"La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (Analisi del\r\nlibro I)\" by Pietro Rossi (pp. 221-45); \"L'attribution de la Translatio nova du De\r\ngenerations et corruptione a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Joanna Judycka (pp. 247-51);\r\n\"Iudicialia ad Syrum: Une traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke du Quadripartitum\r\nde Cl. Ptol\u00a3mee\" by Luc Anthonis (pp. 253-55); \"Methode de traduction et\r\nproblemes de chronologie\" by Fernand Bossier (pp. 257-94); \"L'usage des mots\r\nhybrides greco-latins par Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp.\r\n295-99); and \"Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Willy Vanhamel\r\n(pp. 301-83).","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kM52uB2YgiCytgt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":326,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Pietro d\u2019Abano e l\u2019utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele"]}

Place and Space in Late Neoplatonism, 1977
By: Sambûrsqî, Šemûʾēl
Title Place and Space in Late Neoplatonism
Type Article
Language English
Date 1977
Journal Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Volume 8
Issue 3
Pages 173–187
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sambûrsqî, Šemûʾēl
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Three basic  notions characterize the  physical world, namely space, time  and 
matter, the first of which is  usually held by  scientists to be  simpler than the 
other two. The history of physics and philosophy has  shown, however, that 
even  the  concept of  space  abounds with  difficulties, to  which  the  doctrines of 
the  later Neoplatonic philosophers form an  impressive witness. It  is  proposed 
to  give  here  a  brief survey of  the  theories of  topos,  meaning variously “place” 
or “space”, from Iamblichus at the beginning of the fourth century to 
Simplicius in  the middle of the sixth. Although most of their treatises were 
clad  in  the  modest garb of  commentaries on  works by  Plato or  Aristotle, the 
ideas  of  these  thinkers undoubtedly represent one  of  the  peaks  of  sophistication 
and  metaphysical acumen in the  whole  history of  philosophy. The deliberations and inquiries of these philosophers on the concept of 
topos  took place against a  long historical background, spanning nearly a 
thousand years from the  Presocratics to  Plotinus. A  short synopsis, however 
condensed, of the earlier developments of the concept will  serve as  a  useful 
introduction, leading up  to  the  period in  which Iamblichus and  his  successors 
started to  elaborate their ideas  on  topos.  This  summary will  be  concerned with 
merely the conceptual aspects of the subject and thus will  not adhere to a 
strict  chronological order. [introduction p. 173]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1051","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1051,"authors_free":[{"id":1596,"entry_id":1051,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":308,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","free_first_name":"\u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","free_last_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","norm_person":{"id":308,"first_name":"\u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","last_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee","full_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120109794","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Place and Space in Late Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Place and Space in Late Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"Three basic notions characterize the physical world, namely space, time and \r\nmatter, the first of which is usually held by scientists to be simpler than the \r\nother two. The history of physics and philosophy has shown, however, that \r\neven the concept of space abounds with difficulties, to which the doctrines of \r\nthe later Neoplatonic philosophers form an impressive witness. It is proposed \r\nto give here a brief survey of the theories of topos, meaning variously \u201cplace\u201d \r\nor \u201cspace\u201d, from Iamblichus at the beginning of the fourth century to \r\nSimplicius in the middle of the sixth. Although most of their treatises were \r\nclad in the modest garb of commentaries on works by Plato or Aristotle, the \r\nideas of these thinkers undoubtedly represent one of the peaks of sophistication \r\nand metaphysical acumen in the whole history of philosophy. The deliberations and inquiries of these philosophers on the concept of \r\ntopos took place against a long historical background, spanning nearly a \r\nthousand years from the Presocratics to Plotinus. A short synopsis, however \r\ncondensed, of the earlier developments of the concept will serve as a useful \r\nintroduction, leading up to the period in which Iamblichus and his successors \r\nstarted to elaborate their ideas on topos. This summary will be concerned with \r\nmerely the conceptual aspects of the subject and thus will not adhere to a \r\nstrict chronological order. [introduction p. 173]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FmKjWoNccS499uH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":308,"full_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1051,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"8","issue":"3","pages":"173\u2013187"}},"sort":["Place and Space in Late Neoplatonism"]}

Plotinus in later Platonism, 1981
By: Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Markus, R. A. (Ed.), Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Plotinus in later Platonism
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1981
Published in Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong
Pages 212-222
Categories no categories
Author(s) , Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Markus, R. A.
Translator(s)
We have seen, then, that in some areas later Neoplatonists introduced Plotinus’ views to corroborate their own. This was equally true of his opinions as a Platonist and, as they understood him, as an interpreter of Aristotle. These agreements are most often found in relatively uncontroversial areas of their thought.

However, at the extremes of the metaphysical world and in those other areas where difficulties were likely to arise, we do find substantial differences. We must, however, be cautious about interpreting these differences in terms of chronological changes. The later Neoplatonists continued to disagree among themselves, and the process we have examined was not one of linear development away from Plotinus. [conclusion p. 220]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"873","_score":null,"_source":{"id":873,"authors_free":[{"id":1282,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1283,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":403,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Markus, R. A.","free_first_name":"R. A.","free_last_name":"Markus","norm_person":{"id":403,"first_name":"R. A.","last_name":"Markus","full_name":"Markus, R. A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121838862","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2229,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotinus in later Platonism","main_title":{"title":"Plotinus in later Platonism"},"abstract":"We have seen, then, that in some areas later Neoplatonists introduced Plotinus\u2019 views to corroborate their own. This was equally true of his opinions as a Platonist and, as they understood him, as an interpreter of Aristotle. These agreements are most often found in relatively uncontroversial areas of their thought.\r\n\r\nHowever, at the extremes of the metaphysical world and in those other areas where difficulties were likely to arise, we do find substantial differences. We must, however, be cautious about interpreting these differences in terms of chronological changes. The later Neoplatonists continued to disagree among themselves, and the process we have examined was not one of linear development away from Plotinus. [conclusion p. 220]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ydcrCuFuFOAFW6r","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":403,"full_name":"Markus, R. A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":873,"section_of":131,"pages":"212-222","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":131,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Markus1981a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"The studies collected in this book are all concerned with aspects of the Platonic tradition, either in its own internal development in the Hellenistic age and the period of the Roman Empire, or with the influence of Platonism, in one or other of its forms, on other spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PcJka3NQUzhA8jZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":131,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Variorum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Plotinus in later Platonism"]}

Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the ‘Categories’, 1987
By: Strange, Steven, K., Haase, Wolfgang (Ed.)
Title Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the ‘Categories’
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie
Pages 955-974
Categories no categories
Author(s) Strange, Steven, K.
Editor(s) Haase, Wolfgang
Translator(s)
The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus’ treatises, On the Genera of Being (Περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle’s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1–24), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories.

At the same time, Plotinus’ student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories.

This impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1–12) and Simplicius (2.3–8) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus’ objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry’s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus’ and Simplicius’ commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry’s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus’ lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this.

Moreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry’s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle.

My purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus’ discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus’ and Porphyry’s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry’s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus’ arguments.

The consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role.

My discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd.

Then I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism.

In the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus’ position and Porphyry’s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957]

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

Plutarco di Atene. L’Uno, l’Anima, le Forme, 1989
By: Taormina, Daniela
Title Plutarco di Atene. L’Uno, l’Anima, le Forme
Type Monograph
Language Italian
Date 1989
Publication Place Rom
Publisher Università di Catania, Catania und L’Erma di Bretschneider
Categories no categories
Author(s) Taormina, Daniela
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Questo volume ottavo della Collana "Symbolon" è frutto di lunga e intelligente fatica di ricerca e di studio da parte di una delle mie più valenti allieve e collaboratrici, la dott. D. P. Taormina, che ha il merito di avere fornito, con i risultati di questo suo lavoro, la prima monografia completa, corredata dalla raccolta delle fonti mai prima d'ora compiuta (testo, traduzione e ampio commento), su uno dei più decisivi, ancorché poco studiati, anelli di collegamento tra il primo e l'ultimo neoplatonismo, ovverossia tra l'eredità immediata di Plotino e l'esplosione dell'attività speculativa più matura e sistematica della filosofia neoplatonica. Alla fine del IV secolo d. C., quando il pensiero cristiano era ormai divenuto adulto ad opera di pensatori quali Origene, Mario Vittorino e Agostino (tutti debitori del platonismo e del neoplatonismo), si ebbe ad Atene, nella vecchia e gloriosa culla della civiltà antica, una rinascita della tradizione platonica ad opera di un pensatore destinato a divenire maestro degli ultimi maestri di platonismo dell'antichità. Plutarco di Atene, finora considerato piu un termine di continuità storica che un caposaldo dello sviluppo del pensiero neoplatonico, esce dalla ricerca della Taormina in tutta la sua dimensione teoretica di esegeta e filosofo che ha contribuito a preparare (assieme al suo più famoso primo discepolo, Siriano) le fondamenta piu solide dell'ultima sistemazione del platonismo (Proclo e Damscio)... [offical abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"247","_score":null,"_source":{"id":247,"authors_free":[{"id":1941,"entry_id":247,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":431,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Taormina, Daniela","free_first_name":"Daniela","free_last_name":"Taormina","norm_person":{"id":431,"first_name":"Daniela Patrizia","last_name":"Taormina","full_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305185","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plutarco di Atene. L\u2019Uno, l\u2019Anima, le Forme","main_title":{"title":"Plutarco di Atene. L\u2019Uno, l\u2019Anima, le Forme"},"abstract":"Questo volume ottavo della Collana \"Symbolon\" \u00e8 frutto di lunga e intelligente fatica di ricerca e di studio da parte di una delle mie pi\u00f9 valenti allieve e collaboratrici, la dott. D. P. Taormina, che ha il merito di avere fornito, con i risultati di questo suo lavoro, la prima monografia completa, corredata dalla raccolta delle fonti mai prima d'ora compiuta (testo, traduzione e ampio commento), su uno dei pi\u00f9 decisivi, ancorch\u00e9 poco studiati, anelli di collegamento tra il primo e l'ultimo neoplatonismo, ovverossia tra l'eredit\u00e0 immediata di Plotino e l'esplosione dell'attivit\u00e0 speculativa pi\u00f9 matura e sistematica della filosofia neoplatonica. Alla fine del IV secolo d. C., quando il pensiero cristiano era ormai divenuto adulto ad opera di pensatori quali Origene, Mario Vittorino e Agostino (tutti debitori del platonismo e del neoplatonismo), si ebbe ad Atene, nella vecchia e gloriosa culla della civilt\u00e0 antica, una rinascita della tradizione platonica ad opera di un pensatore destinato a divenire maestro degli ultimi maestri di platonismo dell'antichit\u00e0. Plutarco di Atene, finora considerato piu un termine di continuit\u00e0 storica che un caposaldo dello sviluppo del pensiero neoplatonico, esce dalla ricerca della Taormina in tutta la sua dimensione teoretica di esegeta e filosofo che ha contribuito a preparare (assieme al suo pi\u00f9 famoso primo discepolo, Siriano) le fondamenta piu solide dell'ultima sistemazione del platonismo (Proclo e Damscio)... [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1989","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sgSfZUGUBZdA26p","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":431,"full_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":247,"pubplace":"Rom","publisher":"Universit\u00e0 di Catania, Catania und L\u2019Erma di Bretschneider","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Plutarco di Atene. L\u2019Uno, l\u2019Anima, le Forme"]}

Poion and Poiotes in Stoic Philosophy, 1972
By: Reesor, Margaret E.
Title Poion and Poiotes in Stoic Philosophy
Type Article
Language English
Date 1972
Journal Phronesis
Volume 17
Issue 3
Pages 279-285
Categories no categories
Author(s) Reesor, Margaret E.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The second category, poia, is the most puzzling of the four Stoic categories. The general term poion (qualified) included the koinos poion (generically qualified) and the idios poion (individually qualified), but the relationship between these two concepts is by no means clear. It is even more difficult to see how they were connected with the idia poiotes (particular quality) and the koine poiotis (common quality).

In order to explain how the four terms were related, I shall undertake in this paper as thorough an investigation as possible of a diaeresis described by Boethius in his Commentary on Aristotle's De Interpretatione.

Boethius outlines a diaeresis of possible and necessary propositions in Stoic philosophy. He writes: "They (the Stoics) divide propositions in this way: of propositions, they say, some are possible, others impossible; of the possible, some are necessary, others non-necessary; again, of the non-necessary, some are possible and others impossible, foolishly and recklessly deciding that the possible is both a genus and a species of the non-necessary."

In the chart below, I have reconstructed this diaeresis, using the definitions of the terms and the examples given by Diogenes Laertius. [introduction p. 279]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"859","_score":null,"_source":{"id":859,"authors_free":[{"id":1263,"entry_id":859,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":302,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Reesor, Margaret E.","free_first_name":"Margaret E.","free_last_name":"Reesor","norm_person":{"id":302,"first_name":"Margaret E.","last_name":"Reesor","full_name":"Reesor, Margaret E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Poion and Poiotes in Stoic Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Poion and Poiotes in Stoic Philosophy"},"abstract":"The second category, poia, is the most puzzling of the four Stoic categories. The general term poion (qualified) included the koinos poion (generically qualified) and the idios poion (individually qualified), but the relationship between these two concepts is by no means clear. It is even more difficult to see how they were connected with the idia poiotes (particular quality) and the koine poiotis (common quality).\r\n\r\nIn order to explain how the four terms were related, I shall undertake in this paper as thorough an investigation as possible of a diaeresis described by Boethius in his Commentary on Aristotle's De Interpretatione.\r\n\r\nBoethius outlines a diaeresis of possible and necessary propositions in Stoic philosophy. He writes: \"They (the Stoics) divide propositions in this way: of propositions, they say, some are possible, others impossible; of the possible, some are necessary, others non-necessary; again, of the non-necessary, some are possible and others impossible, foolishly and recklessly deciding that the possible is both a genus and a species of the non-necessary.\"\r\n\r\nIn the chart below, I have reconstructed this diaeresis, using the definitions of the terms and the examples given by Diogenes Laertius. [introduction p. 279]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DItDwer65QVZSCC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":302,"full_name":"Reesor, Margaret E.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":859,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"17","issue":"3","pages":"279-285"}},"sort":["Poion and Poiotes in Stoic Philosophy"]}

Porfirio e la fisica aristotelica, 1985
By: Romano, Francesco
Title Porfirio e la fisica aristotelica
Type Monograph
Language Italian
Date 1985
Publication Place Catania
Publisher Universita di Catania
Series Symbolon
Volume 3
Categories no categories
Author(s) Romano, Francesco
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Tra i commentari ad Aristotele quelli di Porfirio occupano senza dubbio un posto preminente.
Francesco Romano presenta uno studio sulla figura e sull’opera di Porfirio di cui analizza l’attività commentaria e i termini dell’interesse specifico per Aristotele attraverso la ricostruzione dei frammenti e delle testimonianze relativi al Commentario alla Fisica.
Per fare questo l’autore presenta la traduzione dell’opera chiarendo anche i rapporti di Porfirio con Eudemo, Nicola, Alessandro, Temistio e Simplicio. [a.a.]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"60","_score":null,"_source":{"id":60,"authors_free":[{"id":68,"entry_id":60,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":305,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Romano, Francesco","free_first_name":"Francesco","free_last_name":"Romano","norm_person":{"id":305,"first_name":"Francesco","last_name":"Romano","full_name":"Romano, Francesco","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028249454","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porfirio e la fisica aristotelica","main_title":{"title":"Porfirio e la fisica aristotelica"},"abstract":"Tra i commentari ad Aristotele quelli di Porfirio occupano senza dubbio un posto preminente.\r\nFrancesco Romano presenta uno studio sulla figura e sull\u2019opera di Porfirio di cui analizza l\u2019attivit\u00e0 commentaria e i termini dell\u2019interesse specifico per Aristotele attraverso la ricostruzione dei frammenti e delle testimonianze relativi al Commentario alla Fisica.\r\nPer fare questo l\u2019autore presenta la traduzione dell\u2019opera chiarendo anche i rapporti di Porfirio con Eudemo, Nicola, Alessandro, Temistio e Simplicio. [a.a.]","btype":1,"date":"1985","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tivi4S8KV7VK4gv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":305,"full_name":"Romano, Francesco","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":60,"pubplace":"Catania","publisher":"Universita di Catania","series":"Symbolon","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Porfirio e la fisica aristotelica"]}

Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote, 1985
By: Moraux, Paul, Motte, André (Ed.), Rutten, Christian (Ed.)
Title Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1985
Published in Aristotelica: Mélanges offerts à Marcel de Corte
Pages 227-239
Categories no categories
Author(s) Moraux, Paul
Editor(s) Motte, André , Rutten, Christian
Translator(s)
Comme nous l’avons vu, il ne semble pas que Simplicius ait utilisé systématiquement la synopsis des livres V à VIII. Celle-ci a-t-elle laissé des traces ailleurs dans la littérature tardive ? Nous n’en avons aucune preuve formelle. Je voudrais pourtant attirer l’attention sur un passage du commentaire de Macrobe au Somnium Scipionis de Cicéron. Il s’agit d’une discussion de la thèse platonicienne selon laquelle l’âme est immortelle parce qu’elle est automotrice.

Macrobe note qu’Aristote a contesté la légitimité de cette thèse et affirmé que l’âme ne peut se mouvoir elle-même et ne peut même subir aucun mouvement. Aristote montrait d’abord qu’il y a, dans la nature, quelque chose d’immobile. Ensuite, il cherchait à prouver que tout ce qui est mû l’est par quelque chose d’autre. Puis il établissait l’existence d’un premier moteur non mû. Contre Platon, il montrait alors que tout principe de mouvement est immobile, et que donc, si l’âme est principe de mouvement, elle doit être immobile.

Pour illustrer ces diverses thèses d’Aristote, Macrobe reproduit, sous une forme assez squelettique, des arguments présentés par Aristote au livre VIII de la Physique. Il ne s’agit pas là de citations ou d’extraits littéraux, mais bien de résumés où la substance des développements d’Aristote est réduite à l’essentiel, donc d’une sorte d’epidromê ou de synopsis des passages utilisés. Or, nous savons que de tous les néoplatoniciens, Porphyre est l’un de ceux que Macrobe, qui dépend d’ordinaire de sources plus anciennes, utilise le plus volontiers et le plus fréquemment.

Dans son ensemble, la critique moderne admet comme très probable l’hypothèse selon laquelle Macrobe aurait emprunté au traité de Porphyre Peri Psychês pros Boêthon les développements qu’il consacre au passage du Phèdre, traduit par Cicéron, sur l’automotricité et l’immortalité de l’âme. La question se pose donc de savoir si les objections d’Aristote ont été tirées de la même source, ou si Macrobe les a trouvées ailleurs, chez un péripatéticien, par exemple.

Si l’on tient compte du fait que Porphyre connaissait très bien Aristote, dont il avait en partie commenté et en partie résumé la Physique, on pourra, ce me semble, fort bien imaginer que, dans son ouvrage sur l’âme, il s’était attaché non seulement à présenter les vues de Platon, mais aussi à les défendre contre les objections auxquelles elles pouvaient se heurter. Il est donc tout naturel que Porphyre se soit assez longuement étendu sur les difficultés que les théories aristotéliciennes du mouvement et du premier moteur suscitaient contre les arguments de Platon sur l’automotricité de l’âme.

À cet effet, Porphyre avait exploité surtout le dernier livre de la Physique. Et comme il avait résumé sous la forme d’une synopsis les livres V à VIII, tout nous invite à croire qu’il avait largement utilisé cette synopsis en rédigeant son propre Peri Psychês. Mais pour le dire en toute franchise, cette hypothèse, tout alléchante qu’elle est, ne dépasse pas la vraisemblance. Nous ne disposons pas de fragments certains du résumé porphyrien du huitième livre de la Physique et, dès lors, nous ne sommes pas en mesure de prouver, par voie de comparaison, que les objections d’Aristote présentées par Macrobe remontent bien, en dernière analyse, à la synopsis qui a fait l’objet de la présente étude. [conclusion p. 237-239]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"494","_score":null,"_source":{"id":494,"authors_free":[{"id":681,"entry_id":494,"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}},{"id":2115,"entry_id":494,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":468,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Motte, Andre\u0301","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Motte","norm_person":{"id":468,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Motte","full_name":"Motte, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124510663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2409,"entry_id":494,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":469,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rutten, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Rutten","norm_person":{"id":469,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Rutten","full_name":"Rutten, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119515512","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote"},"abstract":"Comme nous l\u2019avons vu, il ne semble pas que Simplicius ait utilis\u00e9 syst\u00e9matiquement la synopsis des livres V \u00e0 VIII. Celle-ci a-t-elle laiss\u00e9 des traces ailleurs dans la litt\u00e9rature tardive ? Nous n\u2019en avons aucune preuve formelle. Je voudrais pourtant attirer l\u2019attention sur un passage du commentaire de Macrobe au Somnium Scipionis de Cic\u00e9ron. Il s\u2019agit d\u2019une discussion de la th\u00e8se platonicienne selon laquelle l\u2019\u00e2me est immortelle parce qu\u2019elle est automotrice.\r\n\r\nMacrobe note qu\u2019Aristote a contest\u00e9 la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de cette th\u00e8se et affirm\u00e9 que l\u2019\u00e2me ne peut se mouvoir elle-m\u00eame et ne peut m\u00eame subir aucun mouvement. Aristote montrait d\u2019abord qu\u2019il y a, dans la nature, quelque chose d\u2019immobile. Ensuite, il cherchait \u00e0 prouver que tout ce qui est m\u00fb l\u2019est par quelque chose d\u2019autre. Puis il \u00e9tablissait l\u2019existence d\u2019un premier moteur non m\u00fb. Contre Platon, il montrait alors que tout principe de mouvement est immobile, et que donc, si l\u2019\u00e2me est principe de mouvement, elle doit \u00eatre immobile.\r\n\r\nPour illustrer ces diverses th\u00e8ses d\u2019Aristote, Macrobe reproduit, sous une forme assez squelettique, des arguments pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par Aristote au livre VIII de la Physique. Il ne s\u2019agit pas l\u00e0 de citations ou d\u2019extraits litt\u00e9raux, mais bien de r\u00e9sum\u00e9s o\u00f9 la substance des d\u00e9veloppements d\u2019Aristote est r\u00e9duite \u00e0 l\u2019essentiel, donc d\u2019une sorte d\u2019epidrom\u00ea ou de synopsis des passages utilis\u00e9s. Or, nous savons que de tous les n\u00e9oplatoniciens, Porphyre est l\u2019un de ceux que Macrobe, qui d\u00e9pend d\u2019ordinaire de sources plus anciennes, utilise le plus volontiers et le plus fr\u00e9quemment.\r\n\r\nDans son ensemble, la critique moderne admet comme tr\u00e8s probable l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se selon laquelle Macrobe aurait emprunt\u00e9 au trait\u00e9 de Porphyre Peri Psych\u00eas pros Bo\u00eathon les d\u00e9veloppements qu\u2019il consacre au passage du Ph\u00e8dre, traduit par Cic\u00e9ron, sur l\u2019automotricit\u00e9 et l\u2019immortalit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e2me. La question se pose donc de savoir si les objections d\u2019Aristote ont \u00e9t\u00e9 tir\u00e9es de la m\u00eame source, ou si Macrobe les a trouv\u00e9es ailleurs, chez un p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien, par exemple.\r\n\r\nSi l\u2019on tient compte du fait que Porphyre connaissait tr\u00e8s bien Aristote, dont il avait en partie comment\u00e9 et en partie r\u00e9sum\u00e9 la Physique, on pourra, ce me semble, fort bien imaginer que, dans son ouvrage sur l\u2019\u00e2me, il s\u2019\u00e9tait attach\u00e9 non seulement \u00e0 pr\u00e9senter les vues de Platon, mais aussi \u00e0 les d\u00e9fendre contre les objections auxquelles elles pouvaient se heurter. Il est donc tout naturel que Porphyre se soit assez longuement \u00e9tendu sur les difficult\u00e9s que les th\u00e9ories aristot\u00e9liciennes du mouvement et du premier moteur suscitaient contre les arguments de Platon sur l\u2019automotricit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e2me.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 cet effet, Porphyre avait exploit\u00e9 surtout le dernier livre de la Physique. Et comme il avait r\u00e9sum\u00e9 sous la forme d\u2019une synopsis les livres V \u00e0 VIII, tout nous invite \u00e0 croire qu\u2019il avait largement utilis\u00e9 cette synopsis en r\u00e9digeant son propre Peri Psych\u00eas. Mais pour le dire en toute franchise, cette hypoth\u00e8se, tout all\u00e9chante qu\u2019elle est, ne d\u00e9passe pas la vraisemblance. Nous ne disposons pas de fragments certains du r\u00e9sum\u00e9 porphyrien du huiti\u00e8me livre de la Physique et, d\u00e8s lors, nous ne sommes pas en mesure de prouver, par voie de comparaison, que les objections d\u2019Aristote pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es par Macrobe remontent bien, en derni\u00e8re analyse, \u00e0 la synopsis qui a fait l\u2019objet de la pr\u00e9sente \u00e9tude. [conclusion p. 237-239]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HITY0gikmySrLA8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":468,"full_name":"Motte, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":469,"full_name":"Rutten, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":494,"section_of":297,"pages":"227-239","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":297,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristotelica: M\u00e9langes offerts \u00e0 Marcel de Corte","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Motte1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vbTKdtbzJ5KxKIX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":297,"pubplace":"Bruxelles \u2013 Lie\u0300ge","publisher":"E\u0301ditions Ousia \u2013 Presses universitaires","series":"Cahiers de philosophie ancienne","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote"]}

Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux préliminaires et index grec complet, 1982
By: Brisson, Luc (Ed.), Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile (Ed.), Goulet, Richard (Ed.), O’Brien, Denis (Ed.)
Title Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux préliminaires et index grec complet
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1982
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Vrin
Series Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquité classique
Volume 6
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Brisson, Luc , Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile , Goulet, Richard , O’Brien, Denis
Translator(s)
Il est apparu que le dernier mot n'avait pas été dit sur ce texte de Porphyre, capital pour notre connaissance de la personne et de l'école de Plotin, et plus largement de la vie philosophique au IIIe siècle de notre ère. Car on est en présence d'un document dont la simplicité est illusoire : la traduction même en est hérissée de difficultés, qui, dans nombre de cas, semblent avoir jusqu'ici échappé à l'attention ; d'autre part, la valeur historique de cette biographie, indubitable en apparence, ne cesse en vérité de faire problème par suite de l'application de Porphyre à se donner en toute circonstance le beau rôle.
De telles considérations, et d'autres encore, ont donné à penser que l'on ne perdrait pas son temps en reprenant l'étude de ce vieux texte sur des bases entièrement nouvelles. [official abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"377","_score":null,"_source":{"id":377,"authors_free":[{"id":1984,"entry_id":377,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":18,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":{"id":18,"first_name":"Luc","last_name":"Brisson","full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114433259","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1985,"entry_id":377,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile ","free_last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1986,"entry_id":377,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1987,"entry_id":377,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O\u2019Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O\u2019Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux pr\u00e9liminaires et index grec complet","main_title":{"title":"Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux pr\u00e9liminaires et index grec complet"},"abstract":"Il est apparu que le dernier mot n'avait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 dit sur ce texte de Porphyre, capital pour notre connaissance de la personne et de l'\u00e9cole de Plotin, et plus largement de la vie philosophique au IIIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re. Car on est en pr\u00e9sence d'un document dont la simplicit\u00e9 est illusoire : la traduction m\u00eame en est h\u00e9riss\u00e9e de difficult\u00e9s, qui, dans nombre de cas, semblent avoir jusqu'ici \u00e9chapp\u00e9 \u00e0 l'attention ; d'autre part, la valeur historique de cette biographie, indubitable en apparence, ne cesse en v\u00e9rit\u00e9 de faire probl\u00e8me par suite de l'application de Porphyre \u00e0 se donner en toute circonstance le beau r\u00f4le.\r\nDe telles consid\u00e9rations, et d'autres encore, ont donn\u00e9 \u00e0 penser que l'on ne perdrait pas son temps en reprenant l'\u00e9tude de ce vieux texte sur des bases enti\u00e8rement nouvelles. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1982","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dg4i4rIRJWOzIZa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":18,"full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":377,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"6","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux pr\u00e9liminaires et index grec complet"]}

Priscianus Lydus en de "In De Anima" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius, 1972
By: Bossier, Fernand, Steel, Carlos
Title Priscianus Lydus en de "In De Anima" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius
Type Article
Language Dutch
Date 1972
Journal Tijdschrift voor Filosofie
Volume 34
Issue 4
Pages 761-822
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bossier, Fernand , Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Dans cet article, nous avons essayé d'examiner la valeur de l'attribution traditionnelle du commentaire In De Anima à Simplicius. En comparant ce traité aux grands commentaires de Simplicius (sur les Catégories, la Physique et le De Caelo d'Aristote), nous avons en effet été frappés par les divergences de style et de langue, ainsi que par la différente manière de commenter.

Dans la première partie, nous démontrons que l'auteur de In D.A. a également écrit la Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, qui nous a été transmise sous le nom de Priscien le Lydien.
1° Dans In D.A., l'auteur renvoie à une de ses œuvres, qu'il appelle Epitomé de la Physique de Théophraste. En réalité, cette référence se rapporte à un passage de la Metaphrase de Priscien, où la même problématique est exposée dans des termes identiques.
2° Une comparaison détaillée portant sur l'ensemble des deux œuvres nous révèle une telle ressemblance de style et de pensée – il y a même des phrases à peu près identiques – qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer que par l'hypothèse de l'identité de l'auteur.

Dans la deuxième partie, nous essayons d'identifier l'auteur de ces deux œuvres qui, pourtant, nous ont été transmises sous deux noms différents. L'étude de la tradition directe et indirecte n'apporte guère de solution, puisque l'attribution des deux textes, l'un à Simplicius, l'autre à Priscien, y paraît très solide. Ce n'est donc que par une critique interne de In D.A., notamment par la confrontation avec les commentaires de Simplicius, dont l'attribution est certaine, que la question pourra être tranchée.
1° Dans In D.A., l'auteur renvoie trois fois à son commentaire sur la Physique. Pourtant, il est bien difficile de retrouver dans le grand commentaire de Simplicius trois passages dont le contenu et surtout le vocabulaire prouvent que l'auteur s'y réfère.
2° Dans In D.A., on ne retrouve pas les traits caractéristiques de la méthode de commentaire de Simplicius, ni l'approche du texte par la documentation historique, ni les longues discussions avec les exégètes antérieurs, ni l'exposé prolixe et bien structuré. D'autre part, aucun des commentaires de Simplicius ne témoigne de la phraséologie tortueuse de notre œuvre, ni de ses formules stéréotypées.
3° La différence doctrinale est encore plus importante. Nulle part chez Simplicius n'apparaît la théorie de l'âme comme epistêmê, qui est si fondamentale dans In D.A. (epistêmê y est un concept-clé). Les rares digressions de In D.A. à propos de questions physiques et logiques ne correspondent pas aux exposés de Simplicius sur les mêmes problèmes.

Ainsi, nous avons confronté la doctrine de la physis, de l'âme et de son automotion, et enfin le rapport entre le genre et les différences constitutives et diérétiques. De tout cela se dégage une telle divergence entre In D.A. et les autres commentaires qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer par une évolution chez Simplicius lui-même. In D.A. lui est donc faussement attribué ; et puisque nous avons établi que ce commentaire est du même auteur que la Metaphrase, nous pouvons conclure qu'il a été vraisemblablement écrit par Priscien le Lydien, un philosophe néoplatonicien dont nous savons seulement qu'il a accompagné Damascius et Simplicius en exil en exil en Perse. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1077","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1077,"authors_free":[{"id":1632,"entry_id":1077,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bossier, Fernand","free_first_name":"Fernand","free_last_name":"Bossier","norm_person":{"id":12,"first_name":"Fernand ","last_name":"Bossier","full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017981663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1633,"entry_id":1077,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscianus Lydus en de \"In De Anima\" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Priscianus Lydus en de \"In De Anima\" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius"},"abstract":"Dans cet article, nous avons essay\u00e9 d'examiner la valeur de l'attribution traditionnelle du commentaire In De Anima \u00e0 Simplicius. En comparant ce trait\u00e9 aux grands commentaires de Simplicius (sur les Cat\u00e9gories, la Physique et le De Caelo d'Aristote), nous avons en effet \u00e9t\u00e9 frapp\u00e9s par les divergences de style et de langue, ainsi que par la diff\u00e9rente mani\u00e8re de commenter.\r\n\r\nDans la premi\u00e8re partie, nous d\u00e9montrons que l'auteur de In D.A. a \u00e9galement \u00e9crit la Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, qui nous a \u00e9t\u00e9 transmise sous le nom de Priscien le Lydien.\r\n1\u00b0 Dans In D.A., l'auteur renvoie \u00e0 une de ses \u0153uvres, qu'il appelle Epitom\u00e9 de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste. En r\u00e9alit\u00e9, cette r\u00e9f\u00e9rence se rapporte \u00e0 un passage de la Metaphrase de Priscien, o\u00f9 la m\u00eame probl\u00e9matique est expos\u00e9e dans des termes identiques.\r\n2\u00b0 Une comparaison d\u00e9taill\u00e9e portant sur l'ensemble des deux \u0153uvres nous r\u00e9v\u00e8le une telle ressemblance de style et de pens\u00e9e \u2013 il y a m\u00eame des phrases \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s identiques \u2013 qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer que par l'hypoth\u00e8se de l'identit\u00e9 de l'auteur.\r\n\r\nDans la deuxi\u00e8me partie, nous essayons d'identifier l'auteur de ces deux \u0153uvres qui, pourtant, nous ont \u00e9t\u00e9 transmises sous deux noms diff\u00e9rents. L'\u00e9tude de la tradition directe et indirecte n'apporte gu\u00e8re de solution, puisque l'attribution des deux textes, l'un \u00e0 Simplicius, l'autre \u00e0 Priscien, y para\u00eet tr\u00e8s solide. Ce n'est donc que par une critique interne de In D.A., notamment par la confrontation avec les commentaires de Simplicius, dont l'attribution est certaine, que la question pourra \u00eatre tranch\u00e9e.\r\n1\u00b0 Dans In D.A., l'auteur renvoie trois fois \u00e0 son commentaire sur la Physique. Pourtant, il est bien difficile de retrouver dans le grand commentaire de Simplicius trois passages dont le contenu et surtout le vocabulaire prouvent que l'auteur s'y r\u00e9f\u00e8re.\r\n2\u00b0 Dans In D.A., on ne retrouve pas les traits caract\u00e9ristiques de la m\u00e9thode de commentaire de Simplicius, ni l'approche du texte par la documentation historique, ni les longues discussions avec les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes ant\u00e9rieurs, ni l'expos\u00e9 prolixe et bien structur\u00e9. D'autre part, aucun des commentaires de Simplicius ne t\u00e9moigne de la phras\u00e9ologie tortueuse de notre \u0153uvre, ni de ses formules st\u00e9r\u00e9otyp\u00e9es.\r\n3\u00b0 La diff\u00e9rence doctrinale est encore plus importante. Nulle part chez Simplicius n'appara\u00eet la th\u00e9orie de l'\u00e2me comme epist\u00eam\u00ea, qui est si fondamentale dans In D.A. (epist\u00eam\u00ea y est un concept-cl\u00e9). Les rares digressions de In D.A. \u00e0 propos de questions physiques et logiques ne correspondent pas aux expos\u00e9s de Simplicius sur les m\u00eames probl\u00e8mes.\r\n\r\nAinsi, nous avons confront\u00e9 la doctrine de la physis, de l'\u00e2me et de son automotion, et enfin le rapport entre le genre et les diff\u00e9rences constitutives et di\u00e9r\u00e9tiques. De tout cela se d\u00e9gage une telle divergence entre In D.A. et les autres commentaires qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer par une \u00e9volution chez Simplicius lui-m\u00eame. In D.A. lui est donc faussement attribu\u00e9 ; et puisque nous avons \u00e9tabli que ce commentaire est du m\u00eame auteur que la Metaphrase, nous pouvons conclure qu'il a \u00e9t\u00e9 vraisemblablement \u00e9crit par Priscien le Lydien, un philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien dont nous savons seulement qu'il a accompagn\u00e9 Damascius et Simplicius en exil en exil en Perse. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/r917awdAL4tkrdc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1077,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Tijdschrift voor Filosofie","volume":"34","issue":"4","pages":"761-822"}},"sort":["Priscianus Lydus en de \"In De Anima\" van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius"]}

Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978, 1981
By: Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs Nikolaou (Ed.)
Title Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1981
Publication Place Athen
Publisher Athēna : Ministry of Culture and Sciences
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs Nikolaou
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1459","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1459,"authors_free":[{"id":2504,"entry_id":1459,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s Nikolaou","free_first_name":"I\u014dann\u0113s Nikolaou","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","main_title":{"title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/I0bn1qB2TUZcu8q","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978"]}

Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985), 1987
By: Pépin, Jean (Ed.), Saffrey, Henri Dominique (Ed.)
Title Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1987
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Centre national de la recherche scientifique
Series Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Pépin, Jean , Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Translator(s)
Du 5e siècle jusqu'au début du 19e siècle, Proclus fut considéré comme l'héritier par excellence de Platon, celui qui avait su tirer des dialogues un exposé systématique et cohérent de la philosophie platonicienne. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"159","_score":null,"_source":{"id":159,"authors_free":[{"id":2055,"entry_id":159,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":227,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":{"id":227,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"P\u00e9pin","full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119165147","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2056,"entry_id":159,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)","main_title":{"title":"Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)"},"abstract":"Du 5e si\u00e8cle jusqu'au d\u00e9but du 19e si\u00e8cle, Proclus fut consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme l'h\u00e9ritier par excellence de Platon, celui qui avait su tirer des dialogues un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique et coh\u00e9rent de la philosophie platonicienne. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QluMshmjYrV5JtV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":227,"full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":159,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre national de la recherche scientifique","series":"Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)"]}

Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars, 1985
By: Lamberz, Erich, Pépin, Jean (Ed.), Saffrey, Henri Dominique (Ed.)
Title Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1985
Published in Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)
Pages 1-20
Categories no categories
Author(s) Lamberz, Erich
Editor(s) Pépin, Jean , Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Translator(s)
In  den  bisherigen Untersuchungen  zur  Form  der  Kommentare  des Proklos  und  der  Neuplatoniker  im  allgemeinen  ist  vor  allem  Gewicht darauf gelegt worden,  daß  die  Kommentare  aus  der mündlichen  Exegese der  Texte hervorgegangen  sind  und  die  Formen  dieser  mündlichen 
Exegese  sich  in  den  schriftlich  fixierten  Werken  widerspiegeln.  Neben Spuren  mündlicher  Ausdrucksformen  und  Reflexen  von  Schuldiskussio­nen  gehört  zu  diesen  Formen  vor  allem  die  Gliederung  der  Exegese  in Abschnitte,  die Vorlesungseinheiten  (praxeis)  entsprechen,  und  die 
Unterteilung  der  einzelnen  Abschnitte  in  Allgemeinerklärung  (theôria) und  Einzelerklärung  (lexis).  Bis  jetzt  blieb  jedoch  weitgehend  die  Frage außer  B etracht,  ob  und  wie  sich  die  von  den  Exegeten  selbst  redigierten 
Kommentare  von  Vorlesungsnachschriften  unterscheiden.  Es  erscheint 
deshalb  sinnvoll,  den  Blickwinkel  einmal  umzukehren  und  zu  fragen, welche  spezifischen  Formelemente  sich  in  den  Kommentaren  des  Proklos 
und  anderer  Neuplatoniker  aufzeigen  lassen,  wenn  man  sie  in  erster Linie  als  literarische  Erzeugnisse  und  nicht  als  Niederschlag  mündlicher Exegese  betrachtet.  Im  folgenden  soll  zu  diesem  Zweck  nach  einigen 
terminologischen Voruntersuchungen  die  Form  der  Lemmata,  deren Einfügung  in  den  Kom m entartext  und  der  Aufbau  der  einzelnen 
Kommentarabschnitte besprochen  werden. [Introduction, p. 1-2]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1191","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1191,"authors_free":[{"id":1762,"entry_id":1191,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":226,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lamberz, Erich","free_first_name":"Erich","free_last_name":"Lamberz","norm_person":{"id":226,"first_name":"Erich","last_name":"Lamberz","full_name":"Lamberz, Erich","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/125040709","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2057,"entry_id":1191,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":227,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":{"id":227,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"P\u00e9pin","full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119165147","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2058,"entry_id":1191,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars","main_title":{"title":"Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars"},"abstract":"In den bisherigen Untersuchungen zur Form der Kommentare des Proklos und der Neuplatoniker im allgemeinen ist vor allem Gewicht darauf gelegt worden, da\u00df die Kommentare aus der m\u00fcndlichen Exegese der Texte hervorgegangen sind und die Formen dieser m\u00fcndlichen \r\nExegese sich in den schriftlich fixierten Werken widerspiegeln. Neben Spuren m\u00fcndlicher Ausdrucksformen und Reflexen von Schuldiskussio\u00adnen geh\u00f6rt zu diesen Formen vor allem die Gliederung der Exegese in Abschnitte, die Vorlesungseinheiten (praxeis) entsprechen, und die \r\nUnterteilung der einzelnen Abschnitte in Allgemeinerkl\u00e4rung (the\u00f4ria) und Einzelerkl\u00e4rung (lexis). Bis jetzt blieb jedoch weitgehend die Frage au\u00dfer B etracht, ob und wie sich die von den Exegeten selbst redigierten \r\nKommentare von Vorlesungsnachschriften unterscheiden. Es erscheint \r\ndeshalb sinnvoll, den Blickwinkel einmal umzukehren und zu fragen, welche spezifischen Formelemente sich in den Kommentaren des Proklos \r\nund anderer Neuplatoniker aufzeigen lassen, wenn man sie in erster Linie als literarische Erzeugnisse und nicht als Niederschlag m\u00fcndlicher Exegese betrachtet. Im folgenden soll zu diesem Zweck nach einigen \r\nterminologischen Voruntersuchungen die Form der Lemmata, deren Einf\u00fcgung in den Kom m entartext und der Aufbau der einzelnen \r\nKommentarabschnitte besprochen werden. [Introduction, p. 1-2]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WFCq8CflnlIPypA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":226,"full_name":"Lamberz, Erich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":227,"full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1191,"section_of":159,"pages":"1-20","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":159,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"P\u00e9pin-Saffrey1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Du 5e si\u00e8cle jusqu'au d\u00e9but du 19e si\u00e8cle, Proclus fut consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme l'h\u00e9ritier par excellence de Platon, celui qui avait su tirer des dialogues un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique et coh\u00e9rent de la philosophie platonicienne. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QluMshmjYrV5JtV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":159,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre national de la recherche scientifique","series":"Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars"]}

Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem, 1987
By: Wildberg, Christian, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science
Pages 197-209
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wildberg, Christian
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
Judging from the number and content of his commentaries, Philoponus was a thinker in the Aristotelian  tradition.  One of his  major achievements lies in 
the fact that as a commentator he accepted and developed the heritage of his teacher Ammonius. For that reason alone it is remarkable that he composed a treatise  which  attacked  vital  topics  of  Aristotle’s  philosophy  with  little compromise. Although it is true that throughout Antiquity many philosophers ventured to criticise the great Aristotle, one may agree that Philoponus did so,  as Cesare Cremonini put it in 1616, ‘more sharply than anyone’ (acerrime omnium).' Where does this attack fit into the context of Philoponus’doctrinal development? No doubt his outspoken critique of Aristotle in the de Aetemitate Mundi  contra  Aristotelem  somehow  swayed  Philoponus  to  desert  the philosophical and join the theological camp.  But the story is probably more complex. The general point of dissent was, as the title indicates, the doctrine of the eternity of the world. Being a Christian, Philoponus perhaps possessed a 
particular  motivation  for  launching  his  attack  -   as  a  feat  of praeparatio evangélica.  This  fact  has  been  sufficiently  recognised  and  appreciated.  Less appreciated and  studied,  however,  has been  the  philosophical side,  i.e.  the actual  argument  and  structure of the treatise  in  question.  Since  it  has  not survived  the  content  must  be  reconstructed  from  a  number  of substantial fragments  found  mainly  in  the  commentaries  of  Philoponus’  adversary Simplicius.  An  adequate  treatment of the  double  controversy Simplicius  v Philoponus  v Aristotle  would  fill  a  volume  on  its  own and  cannot  be  the subject of this chapter.2  Instead,  I will  attempt  to revise apparently  firmly established views about the treatise, in particular its composition and date. This, it is hoped,  may lead to a revised view of that treatise and at the same  time encourage a more advanced study of Philoponus’ doctrinal development in general. [introduction p. 197-198]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"430","_score":null,"_source":{"id":430,"authors_free":[{"id":580,"entry_id":430,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":581,"entry_id":430,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem","main_title":{"title":"Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem"},"abstract":"Judging from the number and content of his commentaries, Philoponus was a thinker in the Aristotelian tradition. One of his major achievements lies in \r\nthe fact that as a commentator he accepted and developed the heritage of his teacher Ammonius. For that reason alone it is remarkable that he composed a treatise which attacked vital topics of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy with little compromise. Although it is true that throughout Antiquity many philosophers ventured to criticise the great Aristotle, one may agree that Philoponus did so, as Cesare Cremonini put it in 1616, \u2018more sharply than anyone\u2019 (acerrime omnium).' Where does this attack fit into the context of Philoponus\u2019doctrinal development? No doubt his outspoken critique of Aristotle in the de Aetemitate Mundi contra Aristotelem somehow swayed Philoponus to desert the philosophical and join the theological camp. But the story is probably more complex. The general point of dissent was, as the title indicates, the doctrine of the eternity of the world. Being a Christian, Philoponus perhaps possessed a \r\nparticular motivation for launching his attack - as a feat of praeparatio evang\u00e9lica. This fact has been sufficiently recognised and appreciated. Less appreciated and studied, however, has been the philosophical side, i.e. the actual argument and structure of the treatise in question. Since it has not survived the content must be reconstructed from a number of substantial fragments found mainly in the commentaries of Philoponus\u2019 adversary Simplicius. An adequate treatment of the double controversy Simplicius v Philoponus v Aristotle would fill a volume on its own and cannot be the subject of this chapter.2 Instead, I will attempt to revise apparently firmly established views about the treatise, in particular its composition and date. This, it is hoped, may lead to a revised view of that treatise and at the same time encourage a more advanced study of Philoponus\u2019 doctrinal development in general. [introduction p. 197-198]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dbFxqr9z9aZi48i","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":430,"section_of":1383,"pages":"197-209","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem"]}

Pseudo-Archytas über die Kategorien, 1972
By: Szlezák, Thomas Alexander
Title Pseudo-Archytas über die Kategorien
Type Monograph
Language German
Date 1972
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Peripatoi
Volume 4
Categories no categories
Author(s) Szlezák, Thomas Alexander
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"220","_score":null,"_source":{"id":220,"authors_free":[{"id":282,"entry_id":220,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":509,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Szlez\u00e1k, Thomas Alexander","free_first_name":"Thomas Alexander","free_last_name":"Szlez\u00e1k","norm_person":{"id":509,"first_name":"Thomas Alexander","last_name":"Szlez\u00e1k","full_name":"Szlez\u00e1k, Thomas Alexander","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11775403X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pseudo-Archytas \u00fcber die Kategorien","main_title":{"title":"Pseudo-Archytas \u00fcber die Kategorien"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1972","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/B53kIQ1NXPQYKjd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":509,"full_name":"Szlez\u00e1k, Thomas Alexander","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":220,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi","volume":"4","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Pseudo-Archytas \u00fcber die Kategorien"]}

Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators, 1985
By: Mignucci, Mario, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1985
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule
Pages 57-97
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mignucci, Mario
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Aristotle’s conception of identity is too large a subject to be analyzed in a single article. I will try to discuss here just one of the many problems raised by his views on sameness. It is not, perhaps, the most stimulating question one could wish to see treated, but it is a question about logic, where I feel a little more at ease than among the complicated and obscure riddles of metaphysics. My subject will be Aristotle’s references to what is nowadays called ‘Leibniz’s Law’ (LL): if two objects x and y are the same, they both share all the same properties. A formal version of it could be:

    (1) x=y  ⟹  ∀F(F(x)  ⟺  F(y))x=y⟹∀F(F(x)⟺F(y))

It is perhaps worth remembering that (LL) must be distinguished from what is normally called the ‘principle of substitutivity’ (SP), according to which substitution of expressions that are said to be the same is truth-preserving. As has been shown, (LL) does not entail (SP), since there are counterexamples to (SP) that do not falsify (LL). Not only (SP), but also (LL) has been doubted by some modern logicians. The question is far from being settled, and it is perhaps of interest to examine how ancient logicians tried to manage this problem.

First, I will consider Aristotle’s statements about (LL) and the analyses he gives of some supposed counterexamples to this principle. Secondly, the interpretations of his view among his Greek commentators will be taken into account, and their distance from the position of the master evaluated. As Professor Moraux has taught us, the study of the Aristotelian tradition often gives us the opportunity of understanding Aristotle’s own meaning better. [introduction p. 57-58]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"959","_score":null,"_source":{"id":959,"authors_free":[{"id":1439,"entry_id":959,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":259,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mignucci, Mario","free_first_name":"Mario","free_last_name":"Mignucci","norm_person":{"id":259,"first_name":"Mignucci","last_name":"Mario","full_name":"Mignucci, Mario","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1194188885","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2083,"entry_id":959,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators","main_title":{"title":"Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators"},"abstract":"Aristotle\u2019s conception of identity is too large a subject to be analyzed in a single article. I will try to discuss here just one of the many problems raised by his views on sameness. It is not, perhaps, the most stimulating question one could wish to see treated, but it is a question about logic, where I feel a little more at ease than among the complicated and obscure riddles of metaphysics. My subject will be Aristotle\u2019s references to what is nowadays called \u2018Leibniz\u2019s Law\u2019 (LL): if two objects x and y are the same, they both share all the same properties. A formal version of it could be:\r\n\r\n (1) x=y\u2005\u200a\u27f9\u2005\u200a\u2200F(F(x)\u2005\u200a\u27fa\u2005\u200aF(y))x=y\u27f9\u2200F(F(x)\u27faF(y))\r\n\r\nIt is perhaps worth remembering that (LL) must be distinguished from what is normally called the \u2018principle of substitutivity\u2019 (SP), according to which substitution of expressions that are said to be the same is truth-preserving. As has been shown, (LL) does not entail (SP), since there are counterexamples to (SP) that do not falsify (LL). Not only (SP), but also (LL) has been doubted by some modern logicians. The question is far from being settled, and it is perhaps of interest to examine how ancient logicians tried to manage this problem.\r\n\r\nFirst, I will consider Aristotle\u2019s statements about (LL) and the analyses he gives of some supposed counterexamples to this principle. Secondly, the interpretations of his view among his Greek commentators will be taken into account, and their distance from the position of the master evaluated. As Professor Moraux has taught us, the study of the Aristotelian tradition often gives us the opportunity of understanding Aristotle\u2019s own meaning better. [introduction p. 57-58]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VYZdFzrmNGSDth4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":259,"full_name":"Mignucci, Mario","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":959,"section_of":190,"pages":"57-97","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":190,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Plezia\/Verdenius\/P\u00e9pin1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators"]}

Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity, 1989
By: Dominic J., O'Meara
Title Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1989
Publication Place Oxford
Publisher Clarendon Press
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dominic J., O'Meara
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The Pythagorean idea that number is the key to understanding reality inspired Neoplatonist philosophers in Late Antiquity to develop theories in physics and metaphysics based on mathematical models. This book examines this theme, describing first the Pythagorean interests of Platonists in the second and third centuries and then Iamblichus's programme to Pythagoreanize Platonism in the fourth century in his work On Pythagoreanism (whose unity of conception is shown and parts of which are reconstructed for the first time). The impact of Iamblichus's programme is examined as regards Hierocles of Alexandria and Syrianus and Proclus in Athens: their conceptions of the figure of Pythagoras and of mathematics and its relation to physics and metaphysics are examined and compared with those of Iamblichus. This provides insight into Iamblichus's contribution to the evolution of Neoplatonism, to the revival of interest in mathematics, and to the development of a philosophy of mathematics and a mathematizing physics and metaphysics. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1441","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1441,"authors_free":[{"id":2302,"entry_id":1441,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dominic J., O'Meara","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"The Pythagorean idea that number is the key to understanding reality inspired Neoplatonist philosophers in Late Antiquity to develop theories in physics and metaphysics based on mathematical models. This book examines this theme, describing first the Pythagorean interests of Platonists in the second and third centuries and then Iamblichus's programme to Pythagoreanize Platonism in the fourth century in his work On Pythagoreanism (whose unity of conception is shown and parts of which are reconstructed for the first time). The impact of Iamblichus's programme is examined as regards Hierocles of Alexandria and Syrianus and Proclus in Athens: their conceptions of the figure of Pythagoras and of mathematics and its relation to physics and metaphysics are examined and compared with those of Iamblichus. This provides insight into Iamblichus's contribution to the evolution of Neoplatonism, to the revival of interest in mathematics, and to the development of a philosophy of mathematics and a mathematizing physics and metaphysics. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1989","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fuRcbbwhcveVtDt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1441,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity"]}

Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficulté de la doctrine aristotélicienne de la qualité (Aristote Catégories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14), 1980
By: Narcy, Michel, Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficulté de la doctrine aristotélicienne de la qualité (Aristote Catégories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14)
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1980
Published in Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique
Pages 197-216
Categories no categories
Author(s) Narcy, Michel
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)
Au chapitre 8 des Catégories, consacré à la qualité (poiotes), Aristote, comme il l’a fait à propos des catégories précédentes (substance, quantité, relation), fait suivre son exposé de l’examen de deux questions : savoir si, dans l’ordre de la qualité, se trouvent contrariété (enantiótes) et accroissement ou diminution (to mallon kai to héttion). On peut noter d’ailleurs qu’à la réponse à ces deux questions se limiteront, au chapitre 9, les indications fournies au sujet des catégories de l’action et de la passion. Questions dont on a pu reconnaître qu’elles constituent comme l’application aux catégories aristotéliciennes d’un système catégorial plus ancien, provenant de l’Académie et dérivé, à travers le platonisme, du pythagorisme.

Il peut paraître étrange de délimiter ici, en vue d’une étude de la catégorie de qualité, un passage d’allure adventice, où vient pour ainsi dire s’entrecroiser avec le fil de l’exposé d’Aristote, et contredire l’assurance de sa classification, une problématique qui semble d’autant moins lui appartenir en propre qu’elle contribue surtout à jeter le doute sur la cohérence de l’exposé qui précède. À chacune des deux questions, en effet, Aristote donne tout d’abord une réponse affirmative (contrariété : 10 b 12 ; accroissement et diminution : 10 b 26), mais c’est pour noter ensuite, à la règle ainsi posée, des exceptions. Ainsi, donnant comme exemple de contrariété le blanc et le noir (10 b 13), il remarque un peu plus bas que d’autres couleurs, telles que le rouge et le jaune, n’ont pas de contraires (10 b 16-17). De même, dans le passage qui va nous occuper, affirme-t-il qu’à la différence des autres qualités, la figure n’est pas susceptible de plus et de moins : exception de taille, cette fois, puisque c’est ainsi l’une des quatre subdivisions de la qualité qui se voit assigner un statut à part.

Rejoignant là l’objection que fait Plotin au principe même d’une division au sein de la qualité, on ne peut éviter de se demander pourquoi la figure est rangée sous cette catégorie. Soit donc que, dans la rencontre avec le système catégorial académique, Aristote se trouve confronté à une difficulté dont il ne vient pas à bout, soit qu’il souligne ainsi l’inadéquation de la « grille » qu’il abandonne, ce passage peut sembler rien moins que central dans le chapitre. À moins que se révèlent, dans la difficulté précisément, pour autant qu’elle est comme une trace de la cassure opérée, et à moins que, pourquoi pas, dans cette cassure se constituent, la signification et la raison d’être de la catégorie aristotélicienne de la qualité, et avec elle, la doctrine des catégories.

L’exception constituée par la figure, en effet, n’est pas une faiblesse qui se laisse seulement apercevoir : Aristote, au contraire, loin de la masquer ou de la mentionner sans plus, comme il fait du rouge et du jaune à propos de la contrariété, non seulement l’expose avec un soin particulier, mais produit une argumentation à l’appui. Ce qui doit d’autant plus retenir l’attention, qu’il a tout d’abord travaillé à réduire une première exception, celle que constitueraient des dispositions telles que la justice ou la santé (10 b 30-11 a 5). Le soin égal apporté, d’abord à réduire une première exception, puis à en produire une autre, donne à croire qu’à entendre au plus près la difficulté, on a chance d’y saisir une ligne de force de la doctrine.

Examinons donc tout d’abord la première partie de notre passage (10 b 26-11 a 5). C’est l’affirmation que les qualités (tà poià) reçoivent « le plus et le moins » (tà mallon kai tà héttion) : « du blanc, en effet : l’un est dit plus et moins qu’un autre. Et du juste : l’un qu’un autre, plus ». [introduction p. 197-198]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"792","_score":null,"_source":{"id":792,"authors_free":[{"id":1169,"entry_id":792,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":277,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narcy, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Narcy","norm_person":{"id":277,"first_name":"Michel","last_name":"Narcy","full_name":"Narcy, Michel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129449512","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1170,"entry_id":792,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficult\u00e9 de la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9 (Aristote Cat\u00e9gories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14)","main_title":{"title":"Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficult\u00e9 de la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9 (Aristote Cat\u00e9gories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14)"},"abstract":"Au chapitre 8 des Cat\u00e9gories, consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la qualit\u00e9 (poiotes), Aristote, comme il l\u2019a fait \u00e0 propos des cat\u00e9gories pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes (substance, quantit\u00e9, relation), fait suivre son expos\u00e9 de l\u2019examen de deux questions : savoir si, dans l\u2019ordre de la qualit\u00e9, se trouvent contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 (enanti\u00f3tes) et accroissement ou diminution (to mallon kai to h\u00e9ttion). On peut noter d\u2019ailleurs qu\u2019\u00e0 la r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 ces deux questions se limiteront, au chapitre 9, les indications fournies au sujet des cat\u00e9gories de l\u2019action et de la passion. Questions dont on a pu reconna\u00eetre qu\u2019elles constituent comme l\u2019application aux cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019un syst\u00e8me cat\u00e9gorial plus ancien, provenant de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie et d\u00e9riv\u00e9, \u00e0 travers le platonisme, du pythagorisme.\r\n\r\nIl peut para\u00eetre \u00e9trange de d\u00e9limiter ici, en vue d\u2019une \u00e9tude de la cat\u00e9gorie de qualit\u00e9, un passage d\u2019allure adventice, o\u00f9 vient pour ainsi dire s\u2019entrecroiser avec le fil de l\u2019expos\u00e9 d\u2019Aristote, et contredire l\u2019assurance de sa classification, une probl\u00e9matique qui semble d\u2019autant moins lui appartenir en propre qu\u2019elle contribue surtout \u00e0 jeter le doute sur la coh\u00e9rence de l\u2019expos\u00e9 qui pr\u00e9c\u00e8de. \u00c0 chacune des deux questions, en effet, Aristote donne tout d\u2019abord une r\u00e9ponse affirmative (contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 : 10 b 12 ; accroissement et diminution : 10 b 26), mais c\u2019est pour noter ensuite, \u00e0 la r\u00e8gle ainsi pos\u00e9e, des exceptions. Ainsi, donnant comme exemple de contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 le blanc et le noir (10 b 13), il remarque un peu plus bas que d\u2019autres couleurs, telles que le rouge et le jaune, n\u2019ont pas de contraires (10 b 16-17). De m\u00eame, dans le passage qui va nous occuper, affirme-t-il qu\u2019\u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence des autres qualit\u00e9s, la figure n\u2019est pas susceptible de plus et de moins : exception de taille, cette fois, puisque c\u2019est ainsi l\u2019une des quatre subdivisions de la qualit\u00e9 qui se voit assigner un statut \u00e0 part.\r\n\r\nRejoignant l\u00e0 l\u2019objection que fait Plotin au principe m\u00eame d\u2019une division au sein de la qualit\u00e9, on ne peut \u00e9viter de se demander pourquoi la figure est rang\u00e9e sous cette cat\u00e9gorie. Soit donc que, dans la rencontre avec le syst\u00e8me cat\u00e9gorial acad\u00e9mique, Aristote se trouve confront\u00e9 \u00e0 une difficult\u00e9 dont il ne vient pas \u00e0 bout, soit qu\u2019il souligne ainsi l\u2019inad\u00e9quation de la \u00ab grille \u00bb qu\u2019il abandonne, ce passage peut sembler rien moins que central dans le chapitre. \u00c0 moins que se r\u00e9v\u00e8lent, dans la difficult\u00e9 pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment, pour autant qu\u2019elle est comme une trace de la cassure op\u00e9r\u00e9e, et \u00e0 moins que, pourquoi pas, dans cette cassure se constituent, la signification et la raison d\u2019\u00eatre de la cat\u00e9gorie aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9, et avec elle, la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nL\u2019exception constitu\u00e9e par la figure, en effet, n\u2019est pas une faiblesse qui se laisse seulement apercevoir : Aristote, au contraire, loin de la masquer ou de la mentionner sans plus, comme il fait du rouge et du jaune \u00e0 propos de la contrari\u00e9t\u00e9, non seulement l\u2019expose avec un soin particulier, mais produit une argumentation \u00e0 l\u2019appui. Ce qui doit d\u2019autant plus retenir l\u2019attention, qu\u2019il a tout d\u2019abord travaill\u00e9 \u00e0 r\u00e9duire une premi\u00e8re exception, celle que constitueraient des dispositions telles que la justice ou la sant\u00e9 (10 b 30-11 a 5). Le soin \u00e9gal apport\u00e9, d\u2019abord \u00e0 r\u00e9duire une premi\u00e8re exception, puis \u00e0 en produire une autre, donne \u00e0 croire qu\u2019\u00e0 entendre au plus pr\u00e8s la difficult\u00e9, on a chance d\u2019y saisir une ligne de force de la doctrine.\r\n\r\nExaminons donc tout d\u2019abord la premi\u00e8re partie de notre passage (10 b 26-11 a 5). C\u2019est l\u2019affirmation que les qualit\u00e9s (t\u00e0 poi\u00e0) re\u00e7oivent \u00ab le plus et le moins \u00bb (t\u00e0 mallon kai t\u00e0 h\u00e9ttion) : \u00ab du blanc, en effet : l\u2019un est dit plus et moins qu\u2019un autre. Et du juste : l\u2019un qu\u2019un autre, plus \u00bb. [introduction p. 197-198]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qCqUG7AShSYKtrM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":277,"full_name":"Narcy, Michel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":792,"section_of":302,"pages":"197-216","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficult\u00e9 de la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9 (Aristote Cat\u00e9gories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14)"]}

Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite du Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote, 1981
By: Hoffmann, Philippe
Title Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite du Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1981
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Université Paris IV-Sorbonne
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"70","_score":null,"_source":{"id":70,"authors_free":[{"id":78,"entry_id":70,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite du Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite du Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FCQ06BefzUIofrf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":70,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Universit\u00e9 Paris IV-Sorbonne","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite du Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote"]}

Recherches sur le néoplatonisme après Plotin, 1990
By: Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Title Recherches sur le néoplatonisme après Plotin
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1990
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Vrin
Series Histoire des doctrines de l’antiquité classique
Categories no categories
Author(s) Saffrey, Henri Dominique
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Le Néoplatonisme après Plotin rassemble une vingtaine d'études parues depuis 1990, qui illustrent l'histoire de la philosophie platonicienne du IVe au VIe siècle, et au-delà. Depuis l'édition par Porphyre des Ennéades de Plotin jusqu'aux scholies du Corpus Dionysien, le propos de ce travail est de montrer les efforts successifs déployés par les philosophes néoplatoniciens pour intégrer le patrimoine philosophique et religieux de l'Antiquité grecque. Jamblique, sous le pseudonyme d'un prêtre égyptien, dialogue avec Porphyre pour exposer les antiques traditions égyptiennes et chaldéennes, Proclus, à la suite de son maître Syrianus, fait entendre l'accord d'Orphée, Pythagore et Platon avec les Oracles Chaldaïques, et pose le fondement de la théologie comme science. Dans ses hymnes, il livre sa dévotion au Soleil et aux dieux des Oracles Chaldaïques. Deux témoins précieux, le manuscrit alchimique de Venise et le Platon du Parisinus graecus 1807, témoignent de la survie du néoplatonisme que Marsile Ficin révélera à l'Europe par sa traduction latine des Ennéades, parue il y a tout juste 500 ans. Enfin l'hommage rendu à L. G. Westerink s'adresse à l'éditeur scientifique le plus fécond des auteurs néoplatoniciens. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1461","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1461,"authors_free":[{"id":2526,"entry_id":1461,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Recherches sur le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin","main_title":{"title":"Recherches sur le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin"},"abstract":"Le N\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin rassemble une vingtaine d'\u00e9tudes parues depuis 1990, qui illustrent l'histoire de la philosophie platonicienne du IVe au VIe si\u00e8cle, et au-del\u00e0. Depuis l'\u00e9dition par Porphyre des Enn\u00e9ades de Plotin jusqu'aux scholies du Corpus Dionysien, le propos de ce travail est de montrer les efforts successifs d\u00e9ploy\u00e9s par les philosophes n\u00e9oplatoniciens pour int\u00e9grer le patrimoine philosophique et religieux de l'Antiquit\u00e9 grecque. Jamblique, sous le pseudonyme d'un pr\u00eatre \u00e9gyptien, dialogue avec Porphyre pour exposer les antiques traditions \u00e9gyptiennes et chald\u00e9ennes, Proclus, \u00e0 la suite de son ma\u00eetre Syrianus, fait entendre l'accord d'Orph\u00e9e, Pythagore et Platon avec les Oracles Chalda\u00efques, et pose le fondement de la th\u00e9ologie comme science. Dans ses hymnes, il livre sa d\u00e9votion au Soleil et aux dieux des Oracles Chalda\u00efques. Deux t\u00e9moins pr\u00e9cieux, le manuscrit alchimique de Venise et le Platon du Parisinus graecus 1807, t\u00e9moignent de la survie du n\u00e9oplatonisme que Marsile Ficin r\u00e9v\u00e9lera \u00e0 l'Europe par sa traduction latine des Enn\u00e9ades, parue il y a tout juste 500 ans. Enfin l'hommage rendu \u00e0 L. G. Westerink s'adresse \u00e0 l'\u00e9diteur scientifique le plus f\u00e9cond des auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PXWKxSDEtCXXJtb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1461,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Histoire des doctrines de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Recherches sur le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin"]}

Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote, 1987
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 225-245
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
The text discusses research on the fragments of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. It focuses on a scholia found in Codex Regius (Paris, gr. 1853) that mentions Simplicius as the author of a commentary on Aristotle's work. The scholia refers to a specific passage in Metaphysics I, 983 b 8, where the interpretation of the term "eidos" creates difficulties. The scholia contrasts the interpretations proposed by Alexandre d'Aphrodise and Simplicius, highlighting their differing views on the meaning of "eidos." The author argues that the scholia indicates familiarity with Simplicius' commentary, suggesting that Simplicius was known and studied in the first half of the 13th century. The scholia also mentions Michel d'Ephese and Jean Italos, providing clues about the context and potential dating of the scholia's composition. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"669","_score":null,"_source":{"id":669,"authors_free":[{"id":980,"entry_id":669,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":981,"entry_id":669,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"The text discusses research on the fragments of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. It focuses on a scholia found in Codex Regius (Paris, gr. 1853) that mentions Simplicius as the author of a commentary on Aristotle's work. The scholia refers to a specific passage in Metaphysics I, 983 b 8, where the interpretation of the term \"eidos\" creates difficulties. The scholia contrasts the interpretations proposed by Alexandre d'Aphrodise and Simplicius, highlighting their differing views on the meaning of \"eidos.\" The author argues that the scholia indicates familiarity with Simplicius' commentary, suggesting that Simplicius was known and studied in the first half of the 13th century. The scholia also mentions Michel d'Ephese and Jean Italos, providing clues about the context and potential dating of the scholia's composition. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/R2DUCY7PTorhIy2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":669,"section_of":171,"pages":"225-245","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote"]}

Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: Über die Zeit, 1983
By: Blumenthal, Henry J.
Title Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: Über die Zeit
Type Article
Language English
Date 1983
Journal The Classical Review, New Series
Volume 33
Issue 2
Pages 337-338
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Like a well-trained Neoplatonist commentator, Sonderegger outlines the skopos of his book on the first page. It is to consider Simplicius' thought about time and make it available to a wider audience (an audience that would, however, need to know Greek). His basis is the 28-page excursus at the end of Simplicius' commentary on Physics 4, known as the Corollarium de Tempore (hereafter, with S., CdT), to which, in the main body of the book, he attends with the minimum of excursions. This is partly dictated by his announced interest in Simplicius himself rather than his relation to other thinkers: as he rightly says, that cannot be treated until it is clear what Simplicius himself thought. In the present state of work on late Neoplatonism, this is not a trivial point.

Sonderegger's aims have produced a very different book from the little-noticed work of H. Meyer, Das Corollarium de Tempore des Simplikios und die Aporien des Aristoteles über die Zeit (Meisenheim am Glan, 1969). Meyer's book is more philosophical and also differs in that his purpose was primarily to understand Aristotle, with no notion of being exoteric. Of this book, Sonderegger takes virtually no account, on the grounds that its presuppositions are very different from his own. What Sonderegger has given us is a very detailed and careful descriptive analysis of CdT, with special attention to the organization of the discussions (pp. 38–139), preceded by an introduction on Simplicius' Physics commentary, his excursuses, and Neoplatonism in general, and followed by some 30 pages of translation and 20 of appendices. These include a table of the uses and contexts of key terms in CdT, examinations of the extent and authenticity of quotations from Ps.-Archytas, Iamblichus, and Damascius, and a translation of Simplicius In Categorias 356.8–25, which contains in nuce much of the thought of CdT.

Sonderegger is clearly aware that Simplicius wrote commentaries to expound his own philosophy, yet he tends to exaggerate the difference in thought rather than merely presentation, which might be expected in CdT and the analogous digressions on chance and place, as opposed to those parts of the commentary that start from specific lemmata. Even if CdT is more connected, it still proceeds largely by discussing quoted texts, and, as Sonderegger reminds us, Simplicius' aim is always to arrive at his own view of time. That, he claims, will help us to understand Aristotle (773.12–14): one recalls uneasily the project of expounding the De anima while following Iamblichus (In De an. 1.18–20). Sonderegger perhaps underestimates the extent to which Simplicius saw himself as engaged in the same enterprise as Aristotle—and Plato.

Though he can cite texts for Simplicius' awareness of the difference between what he and Aristotle say, it does not always follow that Simplicius saw the difference between what he and Aristotle think. The texts Sonderegger quotes at p. 25 n.50 rather point out that Aristotle's intentions are the same, even if his language is not. Thus, 356.31 ff. clearly shows that Simplicius thinks the views on time (chronos) of Aristotle and hoi Neoteroi (the Neoplatonists) are not different. Conversely, in his sketch of the Neoplatonist background, which, as he says, constantly appears in Simplicius' commentary, Sonderegger is inclined to underplay divergences. It is only in the broadest sense true that the outlines of Simplicius' Neoplatonism were determined by Plotinus. The qualification that he liked to attach himself to Iamblichus and used terminology that can be traced back to Proclus is more important.

The extent of Proclus' influence is thoroughly documented by I. Hadot, Le Problème du Néoplatonisme Alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius (Paris, 1978), cited on p. 26 n. 51. I cannot understand the arguments here (29–35) that, for Simplicius, the hypostases are somehow unreal. This is conducted in terms drawn from Husserl and Heidegger, which, to an English-speaking reader, are not immediately illuminating. Incidentally, diakrisis is not an entity. To treat it as if it were is a kind of hyper-Neoplatonic realism: the meaning of "differentiation" is normally adequate.

On time itself, there is a major difference between Plotinus and his post-Iamblichean successors on a point which concerns Sonderegger throughout: the invention of a further type of time that almost becomes a separate hypostasis. This is the psychic time that Simplicius calls protos chronos, as opposed to ordinary physical time on the one hand and aion on the other. The exposition and defense of this first time is the main aim of CdT. It is even more clearly a product of late Neoplatonic triadic thinking than Sonderegger's discussion (69–74) shows.

If there is a triad of things permanent and ungenerated, permanent and generated, impermanent and generated, a mediating time is required for the second member of the triad. That this is Simplicius' thinking is shown by the way he has opposed aion as adiakritos and physical time as ho en ti thesei theôrmenos (784.34 ff.), a relation justifying, if not requiring, a higher time. The most notable recasting of Aristotle in Neoplatonist terms is the transformation of his definition into metron tou kata to einai rhontos (not quite "Mass des Seins des Physischen"), which, for all his concern to show that Simplicius distinguishes between Aristotle's views and his own, Sonderegger seems inclined to accept (cf. esp. 43 f. and 138).

The translation aims at utility rather than elegance. Its value is greater at a time when interest in the thought of late antiquity is spreading among the wholly or nearly Greekless. Translations are increasingly called for. But who would translate the 1,366 pages of Simplicius' Physics commentary, or, indeed, publish the translation? [the entire review]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"770","_score":null,"_source":{"id":770,"authors_free":[{"id":1134,"entry_id":770,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit","main_title":{"title":"Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit"},"abstract":"Like a well-trained Neoplatonist commentator, Sonderegger outlines the skopos of his book on the first page. It is to consider Simplicius' thought about time and make it available to a wider audience (an audience that would, however, need to know Greek). His basis is the 28-page excursus at the end of Simplicius' commentary on Physics 4, known as the Corollarium de Tempore (hereafter, with S., CdT), to which, in the main body of the book, he attends with the minimum of excursions. This is partly dictated by his announced interest in Simplicius himself rather than his relation to other thinkers: as he rightly says, that cannot be treated until it is clear what Simplicius himself thought. In the present state of work on late Neoplatonism, this is not a trivial point.\r\n\r\nSonderegger's aims have produced a very different book from the little-noticed work of H. Meyer, Das Corollarium de Tempore des Simplikios und die Aporien des Aristoteles \u00fcber die Zeit (Meisenheim am Glan, 1969). Meyer's book is more philosophical and also differs in that his purpose was primarily to understand Aristotle, with no notion of being exoteric. Of this book, Sonderegger takes virtually no account, on the grounds that its presuppositions are very different from his own. What Sonderegger has given us is a very detailed and careful descriptive analysis of CdT, with special attention to the organization of the discussions (pp. 38\u2013139), preceded by an introduction on Simplicius' Physics commentary, his excursuses, and Neoplatonism in general, and followed by some 30 pages of translation and 20 of appendices. These include a table of the uses and contexts of key terms in CdT, examinations of the extent and authenticity of quotations from Ps.-Archytas, Iamblichus, and Damascius, and a translation of Simplicius In Categorias 356.8\u201325, which contains in nuce much of the thought of CdT.\r\n\r\nSonderegger is clearly aware that Simplicius wrote commentaries to expound his own philosophy, yet he tends to exaggerate the difference in thought rather than merely presentation, which might be expected in CdT and the analogous digressions on chance and place, as opposed to those parts of the commentary that start from specific lemmata. Even if CdT is more connected, it still proceeds largely by discussing quoted texts, and, as Sonderegger reminds us, Simplicius' aim is always to arrive at his own view of time. That, he claims, will help us to understand Aristotle (773.12\u201314): one recalls uneasily the project of expounding the De anima while following Iamblichus (In De an. 1.18\u201320). Sonderegger perhaps underestimates the extent to which Simplicius saw himself as engaged in the same enterprise as Aristotle\u2014and Plato.\r\n\r\nThough he can cite texts for Simplicius' awareness of the difference between what he and Aristotle say, it does not always follow that Simplicius saw the difference between what he and Aristotle think. The texts Sonderegger quotes at p. 25 n.50 rather point out that Aristotle's intentions are the same, even if his language is not. Thus, 356.31 ff. clearly shows that Simplicius thinks the views on time (chronos) of Aristotle and hoi Neoteroi (the Neoplatonists) are not different. Conversely, in his sketch of the Neoplatonist background, which, as he says, constantly appears in Simplicius' commentary, Sonderegger is inclined to underplay divergences. It is only in the broadest sense true that the outlines of Simplicius' Neoplatonism were determined by Plotinus. The qualification that he liked to attach himself to Iamblichus and used terminology that can be traced back to Proclus is more important.\r\n\r\nThe extent of Proclus' influence is thoroughly documented by I. Hadot, Le Probl\u00e8me du N\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius (Paris, 1978), cited on p. 26 n. 51. I cannot understand the arguments here (29\u201335) that, for Simplicius, the hypostases are somehow unreal. This is conducted in terms drawn from Husserl and Heidegger, which, to an English-speaking reader, are not immediately illuminating. Incidentally, diakrisis is not an entity. To treat it as if it were is a kind of hyper-Neoplatonic realism: the meaning of \"differentiation\" is normally adequate.\r\n\r\nOn time itself, there is a major difference between Plotinus and his post-Iamblichean successors on a point which concerns Sonderegger throughout: the invention of a further type of time that almost becomes a separate hypostasis. This is the psychic time that Simplicius calls protos chronos, as opposed to ordinary physical time on the one hand and aion on the other. The exposition and defense of this first time is the main aim of CdT. It is even more clearly a product of late Neoplatonic triadic thinking than Sonderegger's discussion (69\u201374) shows.\r\n\r\nIf there is a triad of things permanent and ungenerated, permanent and generated, impermanent and generated, a mediating time is required for the second member of the triad. That this is Simplicius' thinking is shown by the way he has opposed aion as adiakritos and physical time as ho en ti thesei the\u00f4rmenos (784.34 ff.), a relation justifying, if not requiring, a higher time. The most notable recasting of Aristotle in Neoplatonist terms is the transformation of his definition into metron tou kata to einai rhontos (not quite \"Mass des Seins des Physischen\"), which, for all his concern to show that Simplicius distinguishes between Aristotle's views and his own, Sonderegger seems inclined to accept (cf. esp. 43 f. and 138).\r\n\r\nThe translation aims at utility rather than elegance. Its value is greater at a time when interest in the thought of late antiquity is spreading among the wholly or nearly Greekless. Translations are increasingly called for. But who would translate the 1,366 pages of Simplicius' Physics commentary, or, indeed, publish the translation? [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZCYOjLO9LGrxQNt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":770,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review, New Series","volume":"33","issue":"2","pages":"337-338"}},"sort":["Review of Erwin Sonderegger: Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit"]}

Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie, 1990
By: Dillon, John
Title Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie
Type Article
Language English
Date 1990
Journal Journal of Hellenic Studies
Volume 110
Pages 244–245
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dillon, John
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius is a man who might seem destined forever to be used simply as a source for other thinkers, without being given much credit for thinking himself. After all, his surviving works are overtly commentaries on one work or another (overwhelmingly of Aristotle)—though, in fact, small bits of more original work are embedded in these, such as the Corollaries on Space and Time in the Physics commentary. He is also a man of exemplary modesty about his own contributions, always making clear his debts to previous authorities, quoting his sources to an extent unusual in Neoplatonist circles (or indeed in the ancient world in general).

It was therefore a happy idea of Mme. Hadot to call together a conference of distinguished Neoplatonists to honor Simplicius and to produce this impressive volume as a result. The work is divided into four (unequal) parts:

    A biographical introduction
    A series of essays on doctrinal and methodological questions
    A shorter section on textual problems
    A pair of essays on Simplicius' Nachleben

All are of interest and importance.

First, we have an essay by Ilsetraut Hadot herself (depending in one important respect on the essay of Michel Tardieu, which follows it) on the chronology of Simplicius' life and works. Tardieu, by a fine piece of detective work (Simplicius et les calendriers de Harran), argues with at least great probability that when Simplicius returned with the other philosophers from Persia in 532, it was not to Athens or any other major center but rather to the town of Harran (Carrhae) in Osrhoene. There, a tradition of non-conformist Christianity was tolerant of philosophy, and it is likely where he composed most, if not all, of his commentaries. Certain remarks Simplicius makes in In Phys. 874.23 ff., about the four different calendars "we" use, seem to require his presence at the only known place where four calendars were simultaneously in use, as we know from later Arab sources.

The central part of the collection comprises six essays on aspects of doctrine:

    Two by Philippe Hoffmann (Categories et langage selon Simplicius: on the purpose (skopos) of Aristotle's Categories and an analysis of Simplicius’ invective against John Philoponus)
    One by Henry Blumenthal on the doctrine of the De Anima commentary of Simplicius (if it is indeed by Simplicius)
    One by Concetta Luna on Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary
    One by Richard Sorabji on Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension
    One by Nestor-Luis Cordero on Simplicius et l'école éléate

Hoffmann's studies frame this central portion of the work. His first examines Simplicius' account of the skopos of Aristotle's Categories, showing how Simplicius, following Porphyry, views the Categories as addressing "utterances" (phonai), "things" (pragmata, onta), "concepts" (noemata), or all of these. Simplicius interprets the study of language, particularly its primary constituents, as a preparation for the soul’s ascent to the noetic world—a higher interpretation inherited from Iamblichus. In his second study, Hoffmann examines Simplicius' strategies of polemic and invective against Philoponus, particularly in the De Caelo, and Simplicius' view of the higher purpose of studying celestial matters. For Simplicius, even prosaic texts like the Categories could become an elevating and prayerful experience.

Sorabji, in an elegant contribution, shows how Simplicius solves a problem bequeathed by Aristotle by identifying prime matter with extension, which Aristotle did not do. Cordero challenges the idea of an Eleatic "school" while listing Simplicius’ quotations of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. Blumenthal discusses Simplicius’ doctrine of the soul, though his uncertainty about the authorship of the De Anima commentary (potentially by Priscian) limits the analysis. Luna traces Iamblichean roots in Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary.

The final sections include discussions of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius, with contributions by Ilsetraut Hadot, Leonardo Taran, and Dieter Harlfinger. Taran critiques Diels’ edition of Simplicius' Physics commentary, showing its deficiencies due to reliance on unreliable collations and limited understanding of Neoplatonic doctrine. Harlfinger analyzes contamination in the manuscript tradition of the commentary on Books I-IV.

The collection concludes with two papers on Simplicius’ influence in the medieval West, one by Fernand Boissier on Latin translations and the influence of the In De Caelo commentary and another by Pierre Hadot on the survival of the Manuel d'Épictète commentary in the 15th to 17th centuries.

Overall, this collection has given Simplicius much of his due as a major commentator and preserver of earlier Greek philosophy. While only three papers—those by Blumenthal, Luna, and Sorabji—discuss any distinctive doctrines of Simplicius, this is perhaps reasonable given that he does not claim originality. Most of what seems distinctive likely goes back to Iamblichus or Syrianus/Proclus. Yet, it might one day be possible to produce a focused volume on his doctrinal innovations. [the entire text]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"708","_score":null,"_source":{"id":708,"authors_free":[{"id":1056,"entry_id":708,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie","main_title":{"title":"Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie"},"abstract":"Simplicius is a man who might seem destined forever to be used simply as a source for other thinkers, without being given much credit for thinking himself. After all, his surviving works are overtly commentaries on one work or another (overwhelmingly of Aristotle)\u2014though, in fact, small bits of more original work are embedded in these, such as the Corollaries on Space and Time in the Physics commentary. He is also a man of exemplary modesty about his own contributions, always making clear his debts to previous authorities, quoting his sources to an extent unusual in Neoplatonist circles (or indeed in the ancient world in general).\r\n\r\nIt was therefore a happy idea of Mme. Hadot to call together a conference of distinguished Neoplatonists to honor Simplicius and to produce this impressive volume as a result. The work is divided into four (unequal) parts:\r\n\r\n A biographical introduction\r\n A series of essays on doctrinal and methodological questions\r\n A shorter section on textual problems\r\n A pair of essays on Simplicius' Nachleben\r\n\r\nAll are of interest and importance.\r\n\r\nFirst, we have an essay by Ilsetraut Hadot herself (depending in one important respect on the essay of Michel Tardieu, which follows it) on the chronology of Simplicius' life and works. Tardieu, by a fine piece of detective work (Simplicius et les calendriers de Harran), argues with at least great probability that when Simplicius returned with the other philosophers from Persia in 532, it was not to Athens or any other major center but rather to the town of Harran (Carrhae) in Osrhoene. There, a tradition of non-conformist Christianity was tolerant of philosophy, and it is likely where he composed most, if not all, of his commentaries. Certain remarks Simplicius makes in In Phys. 874.23 ff., about the four different calendars \"we\" use, seem to require his presence at the only known place where four calendars were simultaneously in use, as we know from later Arab sources.\r\n\r\nThe central part of the collection comprises six essays on aspects of doctrine:\r\n\r\n Two by Philippe Hoffmann (Categories et langage selon Simplicius: on the purpose (skopos) of Aristotle's Categories and an analysis of Simplicius\u2019 invective against John Philoponus)\r\n One by Henry Blumenthal on the doctrine of the De Anima commentary of Simplicius (if it is indeed by Simplicius)\r\n One by Concetta Luna on Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary\r\n One by Richard Sorabji on Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension\r\n One by Nestor-Luis Cordero on Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole \u00e9l\u00e9ate\r\n\r\nHoffmann's studies frame this central portion of the work. His first examines Simplicius' account of the skopos of Aristotle's Categories, showing how Simplicius, following Porphyry, views the Categories as addressing \"utterances\" (phonai), \"things\" (pragmata, onta), \"concepts\" (noemata), or all of these. Simplicius interprets the study of language, particularly its primary constituents, as a preparation for the soul\u2019s ascent to the noetic world\u2014a higher interpretation inherited from Iamblichus. In his second study, Hoffmann examines Simplicius' strategies of polemic and invective against Philoponus, particularly in the De Caelo, and Simplicius' view of the higher purpose of studying celestial matters. For Simplicius, even prosaic texts like the Categories could become an elevating and prayerful experience.\r\n\r\nSorabji, in an elegant contribution, shows how Simplicius solves a problem bequeathed by Aristotle by identifying prime matter with extension, which Aristotle did not do. Cordero challenges the idea of an Eleatic \"school\" while listing Simplicius\u2019 quotations of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. Blumenthal discusses Simplicius\u2019 doctrine of the soul, though his uncertainty about the authorship of the De Anima commentary (potentially by Priscian) limits the analysis. Luna traces Iamblichean roots in Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary.\r\n\r\nThe final sections include discussions of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius, with contributions by Ilsetraut Hadot, Leonardo Taran, and Dieter Harlfinger. Taran critiques Diels\u2019 edition of Simplicius' Physics commentary, showing its deficiencies due to reliance on unreliable collations and limited understanding of Neoplatonic doctrine. Harlfinger analyzes contamination in the manuscript tradition of the commentary on Books I-IV.\r\n\r\nThe collection concludes with two papers on Simplicius\u2019 influence in the medieval West, one by Fernand Boissier on Latin translations and the influence of the In De Caelo commentary and another by Pierre Hadot on the survival of the Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te commentary in the 15th to 17th centuries.\r\n\r\nOverall, this collection has given Simplicius much of his due as a major commentator and preserver of earlier Greek philosophy. While only three papers\u2014those by Blumenthal, Luna, and Sorabji\u2014discuss any distinctive doctrines of Simplicius, this is perhaps reasonable given that he does not claim originality. Most of what seems distinctive likely goes back to Iamblichus or Syrianus\/Proclus. Yet, it might one day be possible to produce a focused volume on his doctrinal innovations. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hje0CYeAY915LhU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":708,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"110","issue":"","pages":"244\u2013245"}},"sort":["Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie"]}

Review of: Ilsetraut Hadot, Le problème du néoplatonisme Alexandrin, Hiéroclès et Simplicius, 1980
By: Steel, Carlos
Title Review of: Ilsetraut Hadot, Le problème du néoplatonisme Alexandrin, Hiéroclès et Simplicius
Type Article
Language Dutch
Date 1980
Journal Tijdschrift voor Filosofie
Volume 42
Issue 3
Pages 606-608
Categories no categories
Author(s) Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The whole review: In een historisch overzicht van de antieke wijsbegeerte wordt doorgaans, wanneer over het Neoplatonisme gehandeld wordt, een onderscheid gemaakt tussen de 'school' van Athene en die van Alexandrië. Dit onderscheid gaat terug op de bekende studies van K. Praechter (1910-12). Volgens deze geleerde zou er een opvallend doctrineel verschil bestaan tussen beide richtingen in het latere Neoplatonisme. In Alexandrië zou de invloed van de christelijke omgeving zo groot geweest zijn dat de heidense filosofen zich verplicht zagen bepaalde wijzigingen in de doctrine aan te brengen.

Het Neoplatonisme vertoont hier niet de complexe structuur die kenmerkend is voor het Atheense speculatieve denken (cf. de hiërarchie van de goddelijke principes zoals die door Proclus ontwikkeld is); het geeft een eenvoudiger verklaring van de leer waarbij dikwijls teruggegrepen wordt naar het Midden-Platonisme (vóór Plotinus); op sommige gebieden (zoals de scheppingsleer) benadert het christelijke standpunten. Deze originaliteit van het Alexandrijnse Neoplatonisme komt het duidelijkst tot uiting in het œuvre van Hierocles (eerste helft 5de eeuw) en in de commentaar van Simplicius (eerste helft 6de eeuw) op Epictetus.

Deze visie van Praechter werd kritiekloos overgenomen in talrijke studies over deze periode. Zo verscheen in 1976 nog een boek over Hierocles (Th. Kobusch, Studien zur Philosophie des Hierokles von Alexandrien, München) waarin de thesis verdedigd wordt dat Hierocles' filosofie „vermittelt“ tussen het Christendom en het „excessieve“ Neoplatonisme zoals het vooral door Proclus uitgewerkt is. „Die Interpretation ergab dass die Hierokleische Philosophie im wesentlichen auf vorneuplatonischer Basis beruht“ (Besluit, p. 193).

Het boek van Mme Hadot, die sinds jaren een uitgave voorbereidt van Simplicius' commentaar op Epictetus, komt tot een conclusie die precies het tegenovergestelde beweert. Op grond van een nieuwe lectuur van Hierocles en Simplicius toont zij aan dat de hypothese van Praechter over het latere Neoplatonisme totaal ongegrond is; er bestaat geen enkel doctrineel verschil tussen het Atheense en het Alexandrijnse Neoplatonisme: „l'évolution du néoplatonisme s'est poursuivie d'une manière homogène“.

Het is verkeerd Hierocles of Simplicius vanuit het Midden-Platonisme te willen interpreteren: hun uiteenzetting veronderstelt de ontwikkeling van het latere Neoplatonisme, wat kan geïllustreerd worden door talrijke parallelle passages met Iamblichus en Proclus, en zelfs – voor Simplicius – met Damascius.

In het eerste deel van dit boek worden de historische gegevens over beide filosofen onderzocht. Het tweede deel onderzoekt in welke mate zij kunnen beschouwd worden als vertegenwoordigers van een originele Alexandrijnse traditie. Achtereenvolgens worden bestudeerd: de theologie van Simplicius in het Epictetus-commentaar, de opvattingen van Hierocles over de ontwikkeling van het Platonisme, over de materie, over de demiurg en de schepping, over de voorzienigheid en het noodlot. In het derde deel volgen enige capita selecta betreffende de commentaar van Simplicius (o.a. zijn leer over de ziel).

Uit al deze analyses komt de auteur tot het besluit dat er geen enkele doctrinaire divergentie aan te wijzen is ten opzichte van de Atheense school. Wel geven beide werken – de commentaar van Hierocles op Pythagoras en die van Simplicius op Epictetus – een eenvoudiger en minder complexe versie van het Neoplatonisme. Dit kan echter verklaard worden door het feit dat beide commentaren bedoeld waren als inleidingen en gericht tot beginnelingen in de school.

In een appendix gaat de auteur uitvoerig in op een artikel dat ik zelf samen met F. Bossier in dit tijdschrift gepubliceerd heb (1972, 761-822) over de authenticiteit van de De Anima-commentaar die aan Simplicius wordt toegeschreven. Alhoewel zij onze conclusie aanvaardt – het werk is waarschijnlijk door Priscianus Lydus geschreven – toch meent zij dat er geen enkel doctrineel verschil met de authentieke Simplicius kan aangewezen worden.

Haar argumenten lijken ons soms erg zwak: het is echter niet mogelijk om hierover in deze recensie polemiek te voeren. Slechts één ding: indien men aanvaardt dat de In de Anima door iemand anders geschreven is dan Simplicius, waarom is het dan zo nodig te beklemtonen dat zijn opvattingen over de ziel in niets van die van Simplicius verschillen?

Dit bezwaar geldt ook voor het gehele werk. Terecht wijst de auteur op de continuïteit die er bestond tussen de school van Athene en die van Alexandrië (zoals dit o.m. tot uiting komt in de veelvuldige persoonlijke relaties van docenten en studenten). Het lijkt ons echter overdreven elk doctrineel verschil tussen beide scholen te ontkennen.

De ontwikkeling binnen het latere Neoplatonisme was zeker niet zo homogeen als mevrouw Hadot beweert. Reeds ten tijde van Plotinus bestonden er belangrijke controversen over de doctrine, en die discussies werden verder gezet in de latere school. Indien men de originaliteit van de Alexandrijnse school in vraag stelt, dan volstaat het niet Hierocles en één werk van Simplicius te onderzoeken. Men zou er ook de andere filosofen uit de school moeten bij betrekken, voornamelijk Ammonius.

Men kan moeilijk betwisten dat het Neoplatonisme dat door Ammonius uiteengezet werd nogal verschillend is van het systeem van Damascius. En is het ook niet opvallend dat Simplicius, die zowel bij Ammonius als Damascius studeerde, dikwijls afstand neemt van de al te speculatieve beschouwingen van Iamblichus en Damascius?

Het boek van mevrouw Hadot is, zoals de auteur zelf toegeeft, vooral polemisch van aard: zij weerlegt hypothesen en interpretaties die niet op de teksten gegrond zijn. Door een nauwkeurige analyse van de teksten ontmaskert zij het stereotiepe beeld dat men over het Alexandrijnse Neoplatonisme geeft. Haar studie is zo een waardevolle bijdrage tot beter inzicht in deze laatste ontwikkeling van het antieke denken. [p. 606-608]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"484","_score":null,"_source":{"id":484,"authors_free":[{"id":659,"entry_id":484,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: Ilsetraut Hadot, Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin, Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Ilsetraut Hadot, Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin, Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius"},"abstract":"The whole review: In een historisch overzicht van de antieke wijsbegeerte wordt doorgaans, wanneer over het Neoplatonisme gehandeld wordt, een onderscheid gemaakt tussen de 'school' van Athene en die van Alexandri\u00eb. Dit onderscheid gaat terug op de bekende studies van K. Praechter (1910-12). Volgens deze geleerde zou er een opvallend doctrineel verschil bestaan tussen beide richtingen in het latere Neoplatonisme. In Alexandri\u00eb zou de invloed van de christelijke omgeving zo groot geweest zijn dat de heidense filosofen zich verplicht zagen bepaalde wijzigingen in de doctrine aan te brengen.\r\n\r\nHet Neoplatonisme vertoont hier niet de complexe structuur die kenmerkend is voor het Atheense speculatieve denken (cf. de hi\u00ebrarchie van de goddelijke principes zoals die door Proclus ontwikkeld is); het geeft een eenvoudiger verklaring van de leer waarbij dikwijls teruggegrepen wordt naar het Midden-Platonisme (v\u00f3\u00f3r Plotinus); op sommige gebieden (zoals de scheppingsleer) benadert het christelijke standpunten. Deze originaliteit van het Alexandrijnse Neoplatonisme komt het duidelijkst tot uiting in het \u0153uvre van Hierocles (eerste helft 5de eeuw) en in de commentaar van Simplicius (eerste helft 6de eeuw) op Epictetus.\r\n\r\nDeze visie van Praechter werd kritiekloos overgenomen in talrijke studies over deze periode. Zo verscheen in 1976 nog een boek over Hierocles (Th. Kobusch, Studien zur Philosophie des Hierokles von Alexandrien, M\u00fcnchen) waarin de thesis verdedigd wordt dat Hierocles' filosofie \u201evermittelt\u201c tussen het Christendom en het \u201eexcessieve\u201c Neoplatonisme zoals het vooral door Proclus uitgewerkt is. \u201eDie Interpretation ergab dass die Hierokleische Philosophie im wesentlichen auf vorneuplatonischer Basis beruht\u201c (Besluit, p. 193).\r\n\r\nHet boek van Mme Hadot, die sinds jaren een uitgave voorbereidt van Simplicius' commentaar op Epictetus, komt tot een conclusie die precies het tegenovergestelde beweert. Op grond van een nieuwe lectuur van Hierocles en Simplicius toont zij aan dat de hypothese van Praechter over het latere Neoplatonisme totaal ongegrond is; er bestaat geen enkel doctrineel verschil tussen het Atheense en het Alexandrijnse Neoplatonisme: \u201el'\u00e9volution du n\u00e9oplatonisme s'est poursuivie d'une mani\u00e8re homog\u00e8ne\u201c.\r\n\r\nHet is verkeerd Hierocles of Simplicius vanuit het Midden-Platonisme te willen interpreteren: hun uiteenzetting veronderstelt de ontwikkeling van het latere Neoplatonisme, wat kan ge\u00efllustreerd worden door talrijke parallelle passages met Iamblichus en Proclus, en zelfs \u2013 voor Simplicius \u2013 met Damascius.\r\n\r\nIn het eerste deel van dit boek worden de historische gegevens over beide filosofen onderzocht. Het tweede deel onderzoekt in welke mate zij kunnen beschouwd worden als vertegenwoordigers van een originele Alexandrijnse traditie. Achtereenvolgens worden bestudeerd: de theologie van Simplicius in het Epictetus-commentaar, de opvattingen van Hierocles over de ontwikkeling van het Platonisme, over de materie, over de demiurg en de schepping, over de voorzienigheid en het noodlot. In het derde deel volgen enige capita selecta betreffende de commentaar van Simplicius (o.a. zijn leer over de ziel).\r\n\r\nUit al deze analyses komt de auteur tot het besluit dat er geen enkele doctrinaire divergentie aan te wijzen is ten opzichte van de Atheense school. Wel geven beide werken \u2013 de commentaar van Hierocles op Pythagoras en die van Simplicius op Epictetus \u2013 een eenvoudiger en minder complexe versie van het Neoplatonisme. Dit kan echter verklaard worden door het feit dat beide commentaren bedoeld waren als inleidingen en gericht tot beginnelingen in de school.\r\n\r\nIn een appendix gaat de auteur uitvoerig in op een artikel dat ik zelf samen met F. Bossier in dit tijdschrift gepubliceerd heb (1972, 761-822) over de authenticiteit van de De Anima-commentaar die aan Simplicius wordt toegeschreven. Alhoewel zij onze conclusie aanvaardt \u2013 het werk is waarschijnlijk door Priscianus Lydus geschreven \u2013 toch meent zij dat er geen enkel doctrineel verschil met de authentieke Simplicius kan aangewezen worden.\r\n\r\nHaar argumenten lijken ons soms erg zwak: het is echter niet mogelijk om hierover in deze recensie polemiek te voeren. Slechts \u00e9\u00e9n ding: indien men aanvaardt dat de In de Anima door iemand anders geschreven is dan Simplicius, waarom is het dan zo nodig te beklemtonen dat zijn opvattingen over de ziel in niets van die van Simplicius verschillen?\r\n\r\nDit bezwaar geldt ook voor het gehele werk. Terecht wijst de auteur op de continu\u00efteit die er bestond tussen de school van Athene en die van Alexandri\u00eb (zoals dit o.m. tot uiting komt in de veelvuldige persoonlijke relaties van docenten en studenten). Het lijkt ons echter overdreven elk doctrineel verschil tussen beide scholen te ontkennen.\r\n\r\nDe ontwikkeling binnen het latere Neoplatonisme was zeker niet zo homogeen als mevrouw Hadot beweert. Reeds ten tijde van Plotinus bestonden er belangrijke controversen over de doctrine, en die discussies werden verder gezet in de latere school. Indien men de originaliteit van de Alexandrijnse school in vraag stelt, dan volstaat het niet Hierocles en \u00e9\u00e9n werk van Simplicius te onderzoeken. Men zou er ook de andere filosofen uit de school moeten bij betrekken, voornamelijk Ammonius.\r\n\r\nMen kan moeilijk betwisten dat het Neoplatonisme dat door Ammonius uiteengezet werd nogal verschillend is van het systeem van Damascius. En is het ook niet opvallend dat Simplicius, die zowel bij Ammonius als Damascius studeerde, dikwijls afstand neemt van de al te speculatieve beschouwingen van Iamblichus en Damascius?\r\n\r\nHet boek van mevrouw Hadot is, zoals de auteur zelf toegeeft, vooral polemisch van aard: zij weerlegt hypothesen en interpretaties die niet op de teksten gegrond zijn. Door een nauwkeurige analyse van de teksten ontmaskert zij het stereotiepe beeld dat men over het Alexandrijnse Neoplatonisme geeft. Haar studie is zo een waardevolle bijdrage tot beter inzicht in deze laatste ontwikkeling van het antieke denken. [p. 606-608]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lIWBQQ2Q5dbWMLm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":484,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Tijdschrift voor Filosofie","volume":"42","issue":"3","pages":"606-608"}},"sort":["Review of: Ilsetraut Hadot, Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin, Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius"]}

Simplicio, gli stoici e le categorie, 1986
By: Isnardi Parente, Margherita
Title Simplicio, gli stoici e le categorie
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 1986
Journal Rivista di storia della filosofia
Volume 41
Issue 1
Pages 3-18
Categories no categories
Author(s) Isnardi Parente, Margherita
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius, In Arist. Categ.,165, 32 sqq. Kalbfleisch, give us an example of the Stoic theory of the categories which seems to be inconsistent with the better known chrysippean theory of the ‘quadri¬partite division’. In Simplicius’ statement we find a first diaeresis (kath’hautá/prós ti) and a second division or hypodiaeresis (‘differentiated relations’ and ‘simple dispositions’ or correlations). Such a division follows a rather platonic-academic schematisms, and — as in Xenocratean or Hermodorean classification of being — the concept of relation occupies in it a privilegiate place. Instead of speaking simply of a continuity between Academy and Stoa, we can more probably hypothize a change in the development of the Stoic theory. The concept of ‘relation’ has an increas¬ing importance after Chrysippus, with the elaboration, by Antipater of Tarsus, of the concept of héxis and hektón; whereas the concept of quality — which is regarded, from Zeno to Chrysippus, as a corporeal entity, substratum, pneuma — is profoundly altered by the introduction of the new concept of ‘incorporeal qualities’. Perhaps later Stoics approached Academic thought in their attempt of a new kind of division, in order to find a better ontological status for ‘relation’ and ‘incorporeity’. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1090","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1090,"authors_free":[{"id":1648,"entry_id":1090,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":282,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","free_first_name":"Margherita","free_last_name":"Isnardi Parente","norm_person":{"id":282,"first_name":"Margherita","last_name":"Isnardi Parente","full_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1023256045","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicio, gli stoici e le categorie","main_title":{"title":"Simplicio, gli stoici e le categorie"},"abstract":"Simplicius, In Arist. Categ.,165, 32 sqq. Kalbfleisch, give us an example of the Stoic theory of the categories which seems to be inconsistent with the better known chrysippean theory of the \u2018quadri\u00acpartite division\u2019. In Simplicius\u2019 statement we find a first diaeresis (kath\u2019haut\u00e1\/pr\u00f3s ti) and a second division or hypodiaeresis (\u2018differentiated relations\u2019 and \u2018simple dispositions\u2019 or correlations). Such a division follows a rather platonic-academic schematisms, and \u2014 as in Xenocratean or Hermodorean classification of being \u2014 the concept of relation occupies in it a privilegiate place. Instead of speaking simply of a continuity between Academy and Stoa, we can more probably hypothize a change in the development of the Stoic theory. The concept of \u2018relation\u2019 has an increas\u00acing importance after Chrysippus, with the elaboration, by Antipater of Tarsus, of the concept of h\u00e9xis and hekt\u00f3n; whereas the concept of quality \u2014 which is regarded, from Zeno to Chrysippus, as a corporeal entity, substratum, pneuma \u2014 is profoundly altered by the introduction of the new concept of \u2018incorporeal qualities\u2019. Perhaps later Stoics approached Academic thought in their attempt of a new kind of division, in order to find a better ontological status for \u2018relation\u2019 and \u2018incorporeity\u2019. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zjhuwrqRYr6pD6m","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":282,"full_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1090,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rivista di storia della filosofia","volume":"41","issue":"1","pages":"3-18"}},"sort":["Simplicio, gli stoici e le categorie"]}

Simplicios, commentateur représentatif d’Aristote dans le néoplatonisme tardif, 1981
By: Vamvoukakis, Nicolas, Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs N. (Ed.)
Title Simplicios, commentateur représentatif d’Aristote dans le néoplatonisme tardif
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1981
Published in Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978
Pages 250
Categories no categories
Author(s) Vamvoukakis, Nicolas
Editor(s) Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs N.
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1460","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1460,"authors_free":[{"id":2524,"entry_id":1460,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":344,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","free_first_name":"Nicolas","free_last_name":"Vamvoukakis","norm_person":{"id":344,"first_name":"Nicolas","last_name":"Vamvoukakis","full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2525,"entry_id":1460,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_first_name":"I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos,","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicios, commentateur repr\u00e9sentatif d\u2019Aristote dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif","main_title":{"title":"Simplicios, commentateur repr\u00e9sentatif d\u2019Aristote dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UItMYMORGj0gHKz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":344,"full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1460,"section_of":1459,"pages":"250","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1459,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Theod\u014drakopulos1981","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/I0bn1qB2TUZcu8q","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicios, commentateur repr\u00e9sentatif d\u2019Aristote dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif"]}

Simplicius, 1975
By: Verbeke, Gérard, Gillispie, Charles Coulston (Ed.)
Title Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1975
Published in Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS
Pages 440-443
Categories no categories
Author(s) Verbeke, Gérard
Editor(s) Gillispie, Charles Coulston
Translator(s)
Simplicius was one of the most famous representatives of Neoplatonism in the sixth century. An outstanding scholar, he was the author of extensive commentaries on Aristotle that contain much valuable information on previous Greek philosophy, including the pre-Socratics.

Very little is known of his life. According to Agathias (History, 11,30,3), he was born in Cilicia. He received his first philosophical education in Alexandria at the school of Ammonius Hermiae, the author of a large commentary on the Peri Hermeneias and on some other logical, physical, and metaphysical treatises of Aristotle. These works strongly influenced not only the commentaries of Simplicius but also those written by the philosophers of the Alexandrian School: Asclepius, Philoponus, and Olympiodorus.

Simplicius also studied philosophy at Athens in the school of Damascius, the author of Problems and Solutions About the First Principles, known for his doctrine of the Ineffable First Principle. According to Damascius, no name is capable of expressing adequately the nature of that Principle, not even the Plotinian name of "the One." Damascius was the last pagan Neoplatonist in the unbroken succession of the Athenian school, where he was teaching when Justinian closed it in 529. Simplicius, who at that time was a member of Damascius’ circle, left Athens with him and five other philosophers and moved to Persia (531-532). Their exile was only temporary, for they returned to the empire after the treaty of peace between the Byzantines and the Persians (533). According to Agathias (History, 11,31,4), the terms of the treaty would have guaranteed to the philosophers full security in their own environment: they were not to be compelled to accept anything against their personal conviction, and they were never to be prevented from living according to their own philosophical doctrine.

There are grounds for supposing that Simplicius settled in Athens after returning from Persia. Presumably, he was not allowed to deliver public lectures and thus could devote all his time to research and writing. Hence his commentaries are not related to any teaching activity; rather, they show the character of written expositions that carefully analyze the Aristotelian text and interpret it in the light of the whole history of Greek philosophy. Simplicius always endeavored to harmonize and reconcile Plato and Aristotle by reducing the differences between them to a question of vocabulary, point of view, or even misunderstanding of some Platonic theories by the Stagirite.

Simplicius was not the first to take this approach. According to W. Jaeger, this trend can be traced to Posidonius and to Neoplatonic philosophy in general. The same method was certainly used by Ammonius, who always attempted to reduce the opposition between Plato and Aristotle to different viewpoints. For example, in dealing with Aristotle’s criticism of the theory of Ideas, Ammonius believed this criticism to concern not the authentic doctrine of Plato, but rather the opinion of some philosophers who attributed to the Ideas an independent subsistence, separate from the Intellect of the Demiurge (Asclepius, In Metaphysicorum, 69,24-27; 73,27).

Apparently, Simplicius was persuaded that this approach was in agreement with the attitude of the philopatheis and that it uncovered the true meaning of philosophical doctrines. At first glance, he said, some theories seem to be quite contradictory, but a more accurate inquiry shows them to be reconcilable (In de Caelo, 159,3-9). Moreover, in explaining a philosophical text, one should not be biased for or against its author. Hence Simplicius opposed the method of Alexander, who from the beginning is suspicious of Plato in the same way that others are inspired with prejudice against Aristotle (In de Caelo, 297,1-4). Since agreement on an opinion, even a prephilosophical one, has often been considered a criterion of truth, Aristotle and the Stoics frequently used the argument of universal agreement. Therefore, having to cope with the increasing influence of Christianity, late Neoplatonic philosophers wanted to argue against the presumed disaccord between the main representatives of Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, in order to enhance their own doctrine. As a Christian, Philoponus did not have the same motives for harmonizing Plato and Aristotle; he firmly opposed attempts to reconcile them and called this interpretation a kind of mythology. Aristotle, he held, did not argue against those who misunderstood Plato but against the authentic Platonic doctrine.

As a commentator, Simplicius did not overestimate his own contributions but was quite aware of his debt to other philosophers, especially to Alexander, Iamblichus, and Porphyry (In Categorias, 3,10-13). He did not hesitate to call his own commentaries a mere introduction to the writings of these famous masters (In Categorias, 3,13-17), nor did he cling fanatically to his own interpretations; he was happy to exchange them for better explanations (In Categorias, 350,8-9). On the other hand, the work of a commentator is far from being a neutral undertaking or a question of mere erudition; it is chiefly an opportunity to become more familiar with the text under consideration and to elucidate some intricate passages (In Enchiridion, Praefatio, 2,24-29; In de Caelo, 102,15; 166,14-16; In Categorias, 3,4-6). Hence Simplicius’ constant concern to obtain reliable documents and to check the historical value of this information, as when he verified the information provided by Alexander about the squaring of the circle according to Hippocrates of Chios (In Physicorum, 60,22-68, 32).

Simplicius adhered to the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of the world, as a theory that fits perfectly into the Neoplatonic ontology insofar as the eternal movement of the heavens is a necessary link between the pure eternity of the intelligible reality and the temporal character of material beings. With respect to this question, Simplicius strongly opposed Philoponus, who asserted the beginning of the world through divine creation. Philoponus, however, did not argue as a Christian, nor did he base his refutation of the Aristotelian doctrine on arguments drawn from his Christian faith. According to him, God is the principle of whatever exists: if time is infinite, nothing may ever come to be, because an infinite number of conditions of possibility are to be fulfilled before anything could begin to exist—which is clearly impossible. Simplicius’ notion of “infinite” is different; it does not mean an infinity existing at once, but a possibility of transcending any boundary. Consequently, the conception of time exposed by both authors is not the same. Simplicius professed a cyclical conception; Philoponus adhered to a linear view without regular return of the same events. Philoponus also substantiated divine creation in time, without preexisting matter; whereas Simplicius maintained that although heaven, the first and highest corporeal reality, is totally dependent upon God, it has never come to exist; it must be eternal because it springs immediately from God. [introduction p. 440-441]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1393","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1393,"authors_free":[{"id":2163,"entry_id":1393,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2165,"entry_id":1393,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":354,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","free_first_name":"Charles Coulston","free_last_name":"Gillispie","norm_person":{"id":354,"first_name":"Charles Coulston","last_name":"Gillispie","full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117710539","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius was one of the most famous representatives of Neoplatonism in the sixth century. An outstanding scholar, he was the author of extensive commentaries on Aristotle that contain much valuable information on previous Greek philosophy, including the pre-Socratics.\r\n\r\nVery little is known of his life. According to Agathias (History, 11,30,3), he was born in Cilicia. He received his first philosophical education in Alexandria at the school of Ammonius Hermiae, the author of a large commentary on the Peri Hermeneias and on some other logical, physical, and metaphysical treatises of Aristotle. These works strongly influenced not only the commentaries of Simplicius but also those written by the philosophers of the Alexandrian School: Asclepius, Philoponus, and Olympiodorus.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also studied philosophy at Athens in the school of Damascius, the author of Problems and Solutions About the First Principles, known for his doctrine of the Ineffable First Principle. According to Damascius, no name is capable of expressing adequately the nature of that Principle, not even the Plotinian name of \"the One.\" Damascius was the last pagan Neoplatonist in the unbroken succession of the Athenian school, where he was teaching when Justinian closed it in 529. Simplicius, who at that time was a member of Damascius\u2019 circle, left Athens with him and five other philosophers and moved to Persia (531-532). Their exile was only temporary, for they returned to the empire after the treaty of peace between the Byzantines and the Persians (533). According to Agathias (History, 11,31,4), the terms of the treaty would have guaranteed to the philosophers full security in their own environment: they were not to be compelled to accept anything against their personal conviction, and they were never to be prevented from living according to their own philosophical doctrine.\r\n\r\nThere are grounds for supposing that Simplicius settled in Athens after returning from Persia. Presumably, he was not allowed to deliver public lectures and thus could devote all his time to research and writing. Hence his commentaries are not related to any teaching activity; rather, they show the character of written expositions that carefully analyze the Aristotelian text and interpret it in the light of the whole history of Greek philosophy. Simplicius always endeavored to harmonize and reconcile Plato and Aristotle by reducing the differences between them to a question of vocabulary, point of view, or even misunderstanding of some Platonic theories by the Stagirite.\r\n\r\nSimplicius was not the first to take this approach. According to W. Jaeger, this trend can be traced to Posidonius and to Neoplatonic philosophy in general. The same method was certainly used by Ammonius, who always attempted to reduce the opposition between Plato and Aristotle to different viewpoints. For example, in dealing with Aristotle\u2019s criticism of the theory of Ideas, Ammonius believed this criticism to concern not the authentic doctrine of Plato, but rather the opinion of some philosophers who attributed to the Ideas an independent subsistence, separate from the Intellect of the Demiurge (Asclepius, In Metaphysicorum, 69,24-27; 73,27).\r\n\r\nApparently, Simplicius was persuaded that this approach was in agreement with the attitude of the philopatheis and that it uncovered the true meaning of philosophical doctrines. At first glance, he said, some theories seem to be quite contradictory, but a more accurate inquiry shows them to be reconcilable (In de Caelo, 159,3-9). Moreover, in explaining a philosophical text, one should not be biased for or against its author. Hence Simplicius opposed the method of Alexander, who from the beginning is suspicious of Plato in the same way that others are inspired with prejudice against Aristotle (In de Caelo, 297,1-4). Since agreement on an opinion, even a prephilosophical one, has often been considered a criterion of truth, Aristotle and the Stoics frequently used the argument of universal agreement. Therefore, having to cope with the increasing influence of Christianity, late Neoplatonic philosophers wanted to argue against the presumed disaccord between the main representatives of Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, in order to enhance their own doctrine. As a Christian, Philoponus did not have the same motives for harmonizing Plato and Aristotle; he firmly opposed attempts to reconcile them and called this interpretation a kind of mythology. Aristotle, he held, did not argue against those who misunderstood Plato but against the authentic Platonic doctrine.\r\n\r\nAs a commentator, Simplicius did not overestimate his own contributions but was quite aware of his debt to other philosophers, especially to Alexander, Iamblichus, and Porphyry (In Categorias, 3,10-13). He did not hesitate to call his own commentaries a mere introduction to the writings of these famous masters (In Categorias, 3,13-17), nor did he cling fanatically to his own interpretations; he was happy to exchange them for better explanations (In Categorias, 350,8-9). On the other hand, the work of a commentator is far from being a neutral undertaking or a question of mere erudition; it is chiefly an opportunity to become more familiar with the text under consideration and to elucidate some intricate passages (In Enchiridion, Praefatio, 2,24-29; In de Caelo, 102,15; 166,14-16; In Categorias, 3,4-6). Hence Simplicius\u2019 constant concern to obtain reliable documents and to check the historical value of this information, as when he verified the information provided by Alexander about the squaring of the circle according to Hippocrates of Chios (In Physicorum, 60,22-68, 32).\r\n\r\nSimplicius adhered to the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of the world, as a theory that fits perfectly into the Neoplatonic ontology insofar as the eternal movement of the heavens is a necessary link between the pure eternity of the intelligible reality and the temporal character of material beings. With respect to this question, Simplicius strongly opposed Philoponus, who asserted the beginning of the world through divine creation. Philoponus, however, did not argue as a Christian, nor did he base his refutation of the Aristotelian doctrine on arguments drawn from his Christian faith. According to him, God is the principle of whatever exists: if time is infinite, nothing may ever come to be, because an infinite number of conditions of possibility are to be fulfilled before anything could begin to exist\u2014which is clearly impossible. Simplicius\u2019 notion of \u201cinfinite\u201d is different; it does not mean an infinity existing at once, but a possibility of transcending any boundary. Consequently, the conception of time exposed by both authors is not the same. Simplicius professed a cyclical conception; Philoponus adhered to a linear view without regular return of the same events. Philoponus also substantiated divine creation in time, without preexisting matter; whereas Simplicius maintained that although heaven, the first and highest corporeal reality, is totally dependent upon God, it has never come to exist; it must be eternal because it springs immediately from God. [introduction p. 440-441]","btype":2,"date":"1975","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dKqS8TkSYL9fWNO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":354,"full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1393,"section_of":1394,"pages":"440-443","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1394,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1975","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Pt8Q1J4Rc3TbiFs","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1394,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Charles Scriber\u2019s Sons","series":"","volume":"XII","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}

Simplicius and others on Aristotle’s discussions of reason, 1988
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Duffy, John (Ed.), Peradotto, John J. (Ed.)
Title Simplicius and others on Aristotle’s discussions of reason
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1988
Published in Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75
Pages 103-119
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Duffy, John , Peradotto, John J.
Translator(s)
What  I  want to  do  in  this paper is to look at how Aristotle’s 
successors  treated  some  points  in  his  discussions  of reason,  and  in 
particular  the  discussion  in  the  De anima. bout  their  handling  of 
relevant  parts  of the  Nichomachaean Ethics we  know very little, for 
unlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in 
the  philosophical  lectures  and  seminars  of late  antiquity.  Though a 
commentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by 
other,  probably  pre-Neoplatonic,  hands  survive,8  exposition  of the 
Nicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group 
of Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"784","_score":null,"_source":{"id":784,"authors_free":[{"id":1154,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2428,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":109,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Duffy, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Duffy","norm_person":{"id":109,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Duffy","full_name":"Duffy, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032769092","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2429,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":110,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Peradotto, John J.","free_first_name":"John J.","free_last_name":"Peradotto","norm_person":{"id":110,"first_name":"John J.","last_name":"Peradotto","full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172304636","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason"},"abstract":"What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle\u2019s \r\nsuccessors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in \r\nparticular the discussion in the De anima. bout their handling of \r\nrelevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for \r\nunlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in \r\nthe philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a \r\ncommentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by \r\nother, probably pre-Neoplatonic, hands survive,8 exposition of the \r\nNicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group \r\nof Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fYDdU8vNuJj4BJd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":109,"full_name":"Duffy, John","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":110,"full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":784,"section_of":35,"pages":"103-119","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":35,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Duffy1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"This volume, dedicated to the scholar Leendert G. Westerink, comprises 16 articles across two main areas of his research interests: Neo-Platonic and Byzantine studies. The six Neo-Platonic articles explore subjects such as manuscript histories, philosophical debates, and influences of figures like Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus. Notably, Father Saffrey investigates an anonymous commentary on Parmenides, while other authors delve into Neo-Platonic mathematics, hymns, and commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason.\r\n\r\nThe ten Byzantine studies articles cover a diverse range of historical and cultural insights. Topics include Byzantine letter-writing practices, with George Dennis highlighting humor in personal correspondence, and Cyril Mango examining the collapse of St. Sophia. Further articles focus on figures such as Psellus, Patriarch Cosmas, and fourteenth-century scholar Georgios Karbones, alongside explorations of political and religious tensions in the Ionian Islands under various European rulers. This collection offers an in-depth look at both Neo-Platonic philosophy and Byzantine cultural dynamics, illustrating the intellectual legacy of Westerink\u2019s scholarship. [summary of Lucas Siorvanes' Review]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QCXOrqqEdxnvWCD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":35,"pubplace":"Buffalo \u2013 New York","publisher":"Arethusa","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason"]}

Simplicius as a Source for and an Interpreter of Parmenides, 1983
By: Perry, Bruce M.
Title Simplicius as a Source for and an Interpreter of Parmenides
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1983
Publication Place University of Washington
Series Ph.D. Dissertation
Categories no categories
Author(s) Perry, Bruce M.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius, a Neoplatonist of the sixth century, wrote extensive commentaries on Aristotle's works, with his commentary on Physics I being of particular significance for the history of ancient philosophy. In this commentary, Simplicius aimed to demonstrate the harmony of doctrines presented by the Presocratic philosophers, both in the physical and metaphysical realms. However, his work has been largely overlooked, partly due to the dominance of the Vorsokratiker collection as the standard source for Presocratic material. This neglect is also attributed to Simplicius being a late Neoplatonist and a commentator, which led to simplistic assessments of his interpretations. Despite being dismissed as derivative and his interpretations considered anachronistic, Simplicius' commentaries and quotations of the Presocratic authors are valuable sources for understanding their philosophies. His work cannot be separated from his interpretations, and their examination can provide important insights into the context and focus of the Presocratics' ideas. While Simplicius employs Neoplatonic concepts in his interpretations, dismissing them solely on this basis overlooks the depth and philological rigor present in his work. Rejecting his interpretations on these grounds may hinder a comprehensive understanding of the Presocratic philosophers and their contributions to ancient philosophy. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1404","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1404,"authors_free":[{"id":2189,"entry_id":1404,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":381,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perry, Bruce M.","free_first_name":"Bruce M.","free_last_name":"Perry","norm_person":{"id":381,"first_name":"Bruce M.","last_name":"Perry","full_name":"Perry, Bruce M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1127083376","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius as a Source for and an Interpreter of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius as a Source for and an Interpreter of Parmenides"},"abstract":"Simplicius, a Neoplatonist of the sixth century, wrote extensive commentaries on Aristotle's works, with his commentary on Physics I being of particular significance for the history of ancient philosophy. In this commentary, Simplicius aimed to demonstrate the harmony of doctrines presented by the Presocratic philosophers, both in the physical and metaphysical realms. However, his work has been largely overlooked, partly due to the dominance of the Vorsokratiker collection as the standard source for Presocratic material. This neglect is also attributed to Simplicius being a late Neoplatonist and a commentator, which led to simplistic assessments of his interpretations. Despite being dismissed as derivative and his interpretations considered anachronistic, Simplicius' commentaries and quotations of the Presocratic authors are valuable sources for understanding their philosophies. His work cannot be separated from his interpretations, and their examination can provide important insights into the context and focus of the Presocratics' ideas. While Simplicius employs Neoplatonic concepts in his interpretations, dismissing them solely on this basis overlooks the depth and philological rigor present in his work. Rejecting his interpretations on these grounds may hinder a comprehensive understanding of the Presocratic philosophers and their contributions to ancient philosophy. [introduction]","btype":1,"date":"1983","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oMg5HcpRdXBRWKI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":381,"full_name":"Perry, Bruce M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1404,"pubplace":"University of Washington","publisher":"","series":"Ph.D. Dissertation","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius as a Source for and an Interpreter of Parmenides"]}

Simplicius et l'école' éléate, 1987
By: Cordero, Néstor-Luis, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Simplicius et l'école' éléate
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 166-182
Categories no categories
Author(s) Cordero, Néstor-Luis
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
This text discusses the concept of the Eleatic school of philosophy, which is attributed to the philosophers Parmenides and Xenophanes. The author argues that the school may not have actually existed as a unified movement, but rather was an invention to help classify the philosophical systems of ancient Greece. The author discusses the historical development of the Eleatic school from Plato to Simplicius and analyzes the presentation of the four Eleatic philosophers by Simplicius. The author concludes that Simplicius, like Plato and Aristotle before him, considers Parmenides to be the central figure of the Eleatic school. The text also examines the reasons why the Eleatic school has been characterized as monistic, and argues that this may be due to a misinterpretation of the works of Parmenides and Melissus. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1278","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1278,"authors_free":[{"id":1867,"entry_id":1278,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":54,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_last_name":"Cordero","norm_person":{"id":54,"first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","last_name":"Cordero","full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055808973","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2346,"entry_id":1278,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole' \u00e9l\u00e9ate","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole' \u00e9l\u00e9ate"},"abstract":"This text discusses the concept of the Eleatic school of philosophy, which is attributed to the philosophers Parmenides and Xenophanes. The author argues that the school may not have actually existed as a unified movement, but rather was an invention to help classify the philosophical systems of ancient Greece. The author discusses the historical development of the Eleatic school from Plato to Simplicius and analyzes the presentation of the four Eleatic philosophers by Simplicius. The author concludes that Simplicius, like Plato and Aristotle before him, considers Parmenides to be the central figure of the Eleatic school. The text also examines the reasons why the Eleatic school has been characterized as monistic, and argues that this may be due to a misinterpretation of the works of Parmenides and Melissus. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TmkANfK25JZ4wfH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":54,"full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1278,"section_of":171,"pages":"166-182","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole' \u00e9l\u00e9ate"]}

Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras, 1989
By: Sylvestre, Maria Luisa, Boudouris, Konstantin, J. (Ed.)
Title Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1989
Published in Ionian Philosophy
Pages 369-374
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sylvestre, Maria Luisa
Editor(s) Boudouris, Konstantin, J.
Translator(s)
This text discusses Simplicius' testimony concerning Anaxagoras and the authenticity of the fragments attributed to Anaxagoras, which are mostly preserved by Simplicius. While scholars have debated the authenticity of Simplicius' fragments, the author believes in Simplicius' faithfulness to the true doctrine of Anaxagoras. However, the author notes that Simplicius wrote about a thousand years after Anaxagoras, was a pupil of Proclus, and a neo-Platonist himself. The text highlights the importance of comparing Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle with the corresponding text of Aristotle to understand his personal interpretation of Anaxagoras. Finally, the text briefly discusses Anaxagoras' concept of nous and its interpretation by Plato, Aristotle, and Simplicius. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1385","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1385,"authors_free":[{"id":2137,"entry_id":1385,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":327,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sylvestre, Maria Luisa","free_first_name":"Maria Luisa","free_last_name":"Sylvestre","norm_person":{"id":327,"first_name":"Maria Luisa","last_name":"Sylvestre","full_name":"Sylvestre, Maria Luisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2138,"entry_id":1385,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":328,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin, J.","free_first_name":"Konstantin, J.","free_last_name":"Boudouris","norm_person":{"id":328,"first_name":"Konstantin J.","last_name":"Boudouris,","full_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1041800053","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras"},"abstract":"This text discusses Simplicius' testimony concerning Anaxagoras and the authenticity of the fragments attributed to Anaxagoras, which are mostly preserved by Simplicius. While scholars have debated the authenticity of Simplicius' fragments, the author believes in Simplicius' faithfulness to the true doctrine of Anaxagoras. However, the author notes that Simplicius wrote about a thousand years after Anaxagoras, was a pupil of Proclus, and a neo-Platonist himself. The text highlights the importance of comparing Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle with the corresponding text of Aristotle to understand his personal interpretation of Anaxagoras. Finally, the text briefly discusses Anaxagoras' concept of nous and its interpretation by Plato, Aristotle, and Simplicius. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gJ3DXudfcNprrxr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":327,"full_name":"Sylvestre, Maria Luisa","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":328,"full_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1385,"section_of":238,"pages":"369-374","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":238,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ionian Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Boudouris1989","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"\u2018The articles in this volume are, in the main, the texts of papers read either in full or in part at the First International Conference on Greek Philosophy (Samos 1988)\u2019 (from the editor\u2019s Preface). Appropriately to such a first conference, it was devoted to the beginnings of philosophy in Greece and, more specifically, in Ionia itself. The volume includes forty- seven papers dealing with all the major figures of Ionian philosophy, from the Milesians to Anaxagoras. Pythagoras, the most illustrious native of Samos, and the Pythagoreans (technically considered an \u2018Italian\u2019 sect, but included by courtesy in the theme of the conference), attract the attention of seven scholars. The other notable Samian, Melissus, is the subject of only one contribution, by D. Furley, possibly because Melissus is usually\r\nBOOK REVIEWS 141classified by the doxographers as an Eleatic. Xenophanes of Colophon is dealt with in five of the articles. Perhaps not surprisingly, almost half of the papers deal with Heraclitus of Ephesus, just across the water from Samos. Among those excluded from this book are the Italians Parmenides, Zeno and Empedocles, and the atomists of Abdera\" [Review Scolnicov]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9oSZ8qRrH4iopVv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":238,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"International Association for Greek Philosophy and Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture","series":"Studies in Greek Philosophy","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras"]}

Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius‘ polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens, 1987
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius‘ polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition
Pages 97-123
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
I am not entirely comfortable finding myself introducing a discordant note into a collection intended to celebrate the refreshing originality of Philoponus’ ideas. I shall, however, be speaking for Simplicius, vindictive pagan that he was, and shall hope to be an effective counterweight to what is said in other chapters. I shall be talking within the framework of a general interpretation of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo. The commentary is an exegetical work undertaken as a paean to the Creator or ‘Demiurge.’ Its basic theory on the physical structure of celestial matter is that this matter is a combination of the superior parts (akrotêtes) of the four elements, dominated by the purely luminous superior part of fire.

My aim will be to show how this theory can be seen as a reaction to the theories of John Philoponus. Philoponus had turned to the Timaeus for support in his Contra Aristotelem and had attacked the Aristotelian doctrine that the heavens are made of a fifth element and that the world is eternal. Well before Copernicus, Philoponus denied that there was any substantial difference between the heavens and the sublunary world. In his reply to the Contra Aristotelem, Simplicius reaffirms the divinity, the transcendence, and the eternal nature of the heavens. His exegesis aims to connect, rather than contrast, Plato’s Timaeus and Aristotle’s De caelo.

It is, moreover, a religious act, a spiritual exercise designed to turn the soul (both Simplicius’ and his reader’s) towards the Demiurge. This conversion is our initiation into the grandeur of the universe and of the heavens, and his description of the physical nature of the heavens is one of the most valuable aspects of the revelation. Those readers still under Philoponus’ spell cannot achieve this revelation until they have undergone a preliminary act of purification, which is the refutation of the arguments of Philoponus’ Contra Aristotelem. In this way, Simplicius’ attack is directed at a target that is simultaneously philosophical and religious.

A correct reading and interpretation of Aristotle’s De caelo leads not only to the acquisition of intellectual knowledge but also, and above all, to our elevation through thought (a thought that we live) to the whole universe and to the Demiurge. It is a form of prayer addressed to them. The sacrilegious blasphemy of the Christian Philoponus is countered by the Neoplatonist liturgy, a rightful celebration of their God. [introduction p. 97-98]

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

Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. Édition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 1, 1971
By: Simplicius , Wilhelm von Moerbeke, Pattin, Adriaan (Ed.)
Title Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. Édition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 1
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1971
Publication Place Louvain
Publisher Publ. Universitaires
Series Corpus Latinum Commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum
Volume 5
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simplicius , Wilhelm von Moerbeke
Editor(s) Pattin, Adriaan
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"177","_score":null,"_source":{"id":177,"authors_free":[{"id":233,"entry_id":177,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2468,"entry_id":177,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":490,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilhelm von Moerbeke","free_first_name":"Wilhelm ","free_last_name":"Moerbeke, von","norm_person":{"id":490,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"von Moerbeke","full_name":"von Moerbeke, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118633007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2469,"entry_id":177,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":496,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pattin, Adriaan","free_first_name":"Adriaan","free_last_name":"Pattin","norm_person":{"id":496,"first_name":"Adriaan","last_name":"Pattin","full_name":"Pattin, Adriaan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1089166524","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. \u00c9dition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 1","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. \u00c9dition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 1"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1971","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/u7BTxg00aLdP0lX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":490,"full_name":"von Moerbeke, Wilhelm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":496,"full_name":"Pattin, Adriaan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":177,"pubplace":"Louvain","publisher":"Publ. Universitaires","series":"Corpus Latinum Commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. \u00c9dition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 1"]}

Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. Édition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 2, 1975
By: Simplicius , Wilhelm von Moerbeke, Pattin, Adriaan (Ed.)
Title Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. Édition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 2
Type Monograph
Language French
Date 1975
Publication Place Louvain
Publisher Publ. Universitaires
Series Corpus Latinum Commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum
Volume 5
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simplicius , Wilhelm von Moerbeke
Editor(s) Pattin, Adriaan
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1455","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1455,"authors_free":[{"id":2470,"entry_id":1455,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2471,"entry_id":1455,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":490,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilhelm von Moerbeke","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Moerbeke, von","norm_person":{"id":490,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"von Moerbeke","full_name":"von Moerbeke, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118633007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2472,"entry_id":1455,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":496,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pattin, Adriaan","free_first_name":"Adriaan","free_last_name":"Pattin","norm_person":{"id":496,"first_name":"Adriaan","last_name":"Pattin","full_name":"Pattin, Adriaan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1089166524","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. \u00c9dition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 2","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. \u00c9dition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 2"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1975","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PGdGZZDu1qnuLcl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":490,"full_name":"von Moerbeke, Wilhelm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":496,"full_name":"Pattin, Adriaan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1455,"pubplace":"Louvain","publisher":"Publ. Universitaires","series":"Corpus Latinum Commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium), Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke. \u00c9dition critique par A. Pattin, vol. 2"]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 6’, 1989
By: Konstan, David (Ed.), Simplicius
Title Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 6’
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1989
Publication Place London
Publisher Duckworth
Series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories no categories
Author(s) , Simplicius
Editor(s) Konstan, David
Translator(s) Konstan, David(Konstan, David) ,
Book Six of Aristotle's Physics, which concerns the continuum, shows Aristotle at his best. It contains his attack on atomism which forced subsequent Greek and Islamic atomists to reshape their views entirely. It also elaborates Zeno's paradoxes of motion and the famous paradoxes of stopping and starting.
This is the first translation into any modern language of Simplicius' commentary on Book Six. Simplicius, the greatest ancient authority on Aristotle's Physics whose works have survived to the present, lived in the sixth century A.D. He produced detailed commentaries on several of Aristotle's works. Those on the Physics, which alone come to over 1300 pages in the original Greek, preserve not only a centuries-old tradition of ancient scholarship on Aristotle but also fragments of lost works by other thinkers, including both the Presocratic philosophers and such Aristotalians as Eudemus, Theophrastus and Alexander.
The Physics contains some of Aristotle's best and most enduring work, and Simplicius' commentaries are essential to an understanding of it. This volume makes the commentary on Book Six accessible at last to all scholars, whether or not they know classical Greek. It will be indispensible for students of classical philosophy, and especially of Aristotle, as well as for those interested in philosophical thought of late antiquity. It will also be welcomed by students of the history of ideas and philosophers interested in problem mathematics and motion. [offical abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"103","_score":null,"_source":{"id":103,"authors_free":[{"id":120,"entry_id":103,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":430,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Konstan, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Konstan","norm_person":{"id":430,"first_name":"David","last_name":"Konstan","full_name":"Konstan, David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132072300","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2272,"entry_id":103,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":430,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Konstan, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Konstan","norm_person":{"id":430,"first_name":"David","last_name":"Konstan","full_name":"Konstan, David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132072300","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2325,"entry_id":103,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 6\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 6\u2019"},"abstract":"Book Six of Aristotle's Physics, which concerns the continuum, shows Aristotle at his best. It contains his attack on atomism which forced subsequent Greek and Islamic atomists to reshape their views entirely. It also elaborates Zeno's paradoxes of motion and the famous paradoxes of stopping and starting.\r\nThis is the first translation into any modern language of Simplicius' commentary on Book Six. Simplicius, the greatest ancient authority on Aristotle's Physics whose works have survived to the present, lived in the sixth century A.D. He produced detailed commentaries on several of Aristotle's works. Those on the Physics, which alone come to over 1300 pages in the original Greek, preserve not only a centuries-old tradition of ancient scholarship on Aristotle but also fragments of lost works by other thinkers, including both the Presocratic philosophers and such Aristotalians as Eudemus, Theophrastus and Alexander.\r\nThe Physics contains some of Aristotle's best and most enduring work, and Simplicius' commentaries are essential to an understanding of it. This volume makes the commentary on Book Six accessible at last to all scholars, whether or not they know classical Greek. It will be indispensible for students of classical philosophy, and especially of Aristotle, as well as for those interested in philosophical thought of late antiquity. It will also be welcomed by students of the history of ideas and philosophers interested in problem mathematics and motion. [offical abstract]\r\n","btype":1,"date":"1989","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2A29TJYaiV3J3QH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":430,"full_name":"Konstan, David","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":430,"full_name":"Konstan, David","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":103,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 6\u2019"]}

Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Traduction commentée sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Première partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch), 1990
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.), Simplicius,
Title Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Traduction commentée sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Première partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1990
Publication Place Leiden - New York - København - Köln
Publisher Brill
Series Philosophia antiqua. A Series of studies on ancient Philosophy
Volume 50.1
Categories no categories
Author(s) , Simplicius
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s) Hoffmann, Philippe (Hoffmann, Philippe ) , Hadot, Pierre(Hadot, Pierre)
The French translation with commentary, the first in a modern language, allows historians of philosophy access to a fundamental work for the understanding of medieval and modern thought. They could also explore more easily the great variety of information contained in the commentary of Simplicius on the history of the exegis of the Catégories of Aristotle, and more generally on the history of comparative philosophy of Simplicius. They will discover some important aspects in the actual thought of Simplicius, which so far has hardly been explored. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"179","_score":null,"_source":{"id":179,"authors_free":[{"id":235,"entry_id":179,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1975,"entry_id":179,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","free_first_name":"Philippe ","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1976,"entry_id":179,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2359,"entry_id":179,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Premi\u00e8re partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Premi\u00e8re partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)"},"abstract":"The French translation with commentary, the first in a modern language, allows historians of philosophy access to a fundamental work for the understanding of medieval and modern thought. They could also explore more easily the great variety of information contained in the commentary of Simplicius on the history of the exegis of the Cat\u00e9gories of Aristotle, and more generally on the history of comparative philosophy of Simplicius. They will discover some important aspects in the actual thought of Simplicius, which so far has hardly been explored. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KyrBWf80BsqVFO8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":179,"pubplace":"Leiden - New York - K\u00f8benhavn - K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua. A Series of studies on ancient Philosophy","volume":"50.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Premi\u00e8re partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)"]}

Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Traduction commentée sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule III: Préambule aux catégories; Commentaire au premier chapitre des catégories (p. 21 - 40, 13 Kalbfleisch), 1990
By: Simplicius, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.),
Title Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Traduction commentée sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule III: Préambule aux catégories; Commentaire au premier chapitre des catégories (p. 21 - 40, 13 Kalbfleisch)
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1990
Publication Place Leiden - New York - København - Köln
Publisher Brill
Series Philosophia antiqua. A Series of studies on ancient Philosophy
Volume 51
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simplicius
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s) Hoffmann, Philippe(Hoffmann, Philippe )
The French translation with commentary, the first in a modern language, allows historians of philosophy access to a fundamental work for the understanding of medieval and modern thought. They could also explore more easily the great variety of information contained in the commentary of Simplicius on the history of the exegis of the Catégories of Aristotle, and more generally on the history of comparative philosophy of Simplicius. They will discover some important aspects in the actual thought of Simplicius, which so far has hardly been explored. [official abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1447","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1447,"authors_free":[{"id":2363,"entry_id":1447,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2364,"entry_id":1447,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2366,"entry_id":1447,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule III: \tPr\u00e9ambule aux cat\u00e9gories; Commentaire au premier chapitre des cat\u00e9gories (p. 21 - 40, 13 Kalbfleisch)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule III: \tPr\u00e9ambule aux cat\u00e9gories; Commentaire au premier chapitre des cat\u00e9gories (p. 21 - 40, 13 Kalbfleisch)"},"abstract":"The French translation with commentary, the first in a modern language, allows historians of philosophy access to a fundamental work for the understanding of medieval and modern thought. They could also explore more easily the great variety of information contained in the commentary of Simplicius on the history of the exegis of the Cat\u00e9gories of Aristotle, and more generally on the history of comparative philosophy of Simplicius. They will discover some important aspects in the actual thought of Simplicius, which so far has hardly been explored. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KyrBWf80BsqVFO8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":1447,"pubplace":"Leiden - New York - K\u00f8benhavn - K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua. A Series of studies on ancient Philosophy","volume":"51","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule III: \tPr\u00e9ambule aux cat\u00e9gories; Commentaire au premier chapitre des cat\u00e9gories (p. 21 - 40, 13 Kalbfleisch)"]}

Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985, 1987
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Type Edited Book
Language French
Date 1987
Publication Place Berlin – New York
Publisher de Gruyter
Series Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus
Volume 15
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
Depuis une quinzaine d'années, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Amérique et en France à un renouveau des études sur Simplicius. Différents chercheurs, partis de problématiques et de préoccupations différentes, se sont rencontrés dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'était donc pour faciliter une étude coordonnée et systématique à la fois du texte et de la pensée de Simplicius que la Recherche Coopérative Programmée 739 "Recherches sur les œuvres et la pensée de Simplicius" fut fondée en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se déroulent en étroite collaboration avec l'équipe anglo-américaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitulée "Ancient Commentators on Aristotle", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universität de Berlin-Ouest dirigé par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.

Pour permettre aux différents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent à l'étranger, ainsi qu'à d'autres savants intéressés par les études sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de résoudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant à l'organisation du travail, d'échanger entre eux les tout derniers résultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des problèmes difficiles, j'ai organisé, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu à Paris, à la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a été entièrement financé par la Fondation Hugot du Collège de France, à laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi à remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veillé à leur procurer un merveilleux confort.

Le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionné la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la série prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'édition De Gruyter. [Préface]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"171","_score":null,"_source":{"id":171,"authors_free":[{"id":1831,"entry_id":171,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985"},"abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","btype":4,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985"]}

Simplicius: Corollarium de loco, 1979
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Aujac, Germaine (Ed.), Soubiran, Jean (Ed.)
Title Simplicius: Corollarium de loco
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1979
Published in L'Astronomie dans l'antiquité classique. Actes du Colloque tenu à l'Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21–23 Octobre, 1977
Pages 143-161
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Aujac, Germaine , Soubiran, Jean
Translator(s)
En conclusion : La définition aristotélicienne du lieu comme « première limite immobile de l'enveloppant » tente de concilier deux exigences contradictoires : le lieu est une enveloppe et il est immobile. Aristote est contraint de dire que le Monde n'est pas en un lieu, puisqu'il n'est enveloppé par rien : s'il n'est nulle part, il ne peut non plus se mouvoir localement, ce qui est en contradiction avec l'« expérience » et avec d’autres exigences du système (la dignité du mouvement circulaire uniforme et éternel convient à la substance céleste).

    Proclus, sur la base de la problématique aristotélicienne, interprète l'enveloppement par le lieu du corps situé en lui comme une compénétration totale de l’un et de l'autre. Sa solution est plus physique et plus cosmologique que celle de Damascius : le lieu est une sphère corporelle de lumière pure en coïncidence parfaite avec la sphère cosmique. Le lieu est immobile, tandis que l'Univers se meut en lui.

    Damascius propose une solution plus métaphysique : le lieu est la mesure (incorporelle, quoique sensible) de la position. L'Univers a un lieu fixe, son lieu essentiel, d'où procèdent les lieux successifs qui sont les siens au cours de son mouvement.

Proclus et Damascius, chacun à leur manière, établissent donc :

    que le Monde a un lieu (fixe) ;
    que le Monde se meut localement.

Ils triomphent ainsi des apories dans lesquelles s'engageait la pensée d'Aristote. [conclusion p. 161]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"510","_score":null,"_source":{"id":510,"authors_free":[{"id":707,"entry_id":510,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":708,"entry_id":510,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":183,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aujac, Germaine","free_first_name":"Germaine","free_last_name":"Aujac","norm_person":{"id":183,"first_name":"Germaine","last_name":"Aujac","full_name":"Aujac, Germaine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132761629","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":709,"entry_id":510,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":184,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Soubiran, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"Soubiran","norm_person":{"id":184,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"Soubiran","full_name":"Soubiran, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124279694","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius: Corollarium de loco","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius: Corollarium de loco"},"abstract":"En conclusion : La d\u00e9finition aristot\u00e9licienne du lieu comme \u00ab premi\u00e8re limite immobile de l'enveloppant \u00bb tente de concilier deux exigences contradictoires : le lieu est une enveloppe et il est immobile. Aristote est contraint de dire que le Monde n'est pas en un lieu, puisqu'il n'est envelopp\u00e9 par rien : s'il n'est nulle part, il ne peut non plus se mouvoir localement, ce qui est en contradiction avec l'\u00ab exp\u00e9rience \u00bb et avec d\u2019autres exigences du syst\u00e8me (la dignit\u00e9 du mouvement circulaire uniforme et \u00e9ternel convient \u00e0 la substance c\u00e9leste).\r\n\r\n Proclus, sur la base de la probl\u00e9matique aristot\u00e9licienne, interpr\u00e8te l'enveloppement par le lieu du corps situ\u00e9 en lui comme une comp\u00e9n\u00e9tration totale de l\u2019un et de l'autre. Sa solution est plus physique et plus cosmologique que celle de Damascius : le lieu est une sph\u00e8re corporelle de lumi\u00e8re pure en co\u00efncidence parfaite avec la sph\u00e8re cosmique. Le lieu est immobile, tandis que l'Univers se meut en lui.\r\n\r\n Damascius propose une solution plus m\u00e9taphysique : le lieu est la mesure (incorporelle, quoique sensible) de la position. L'Univers a un lieu fixe, son lieu essentiel, d'o\u00f9 proc\u00e8dent les lieux successifs qui sont les siens au cours de son mouvement.\r\n\r\nProclus et Damascius, chacun \u00e0 leur mani\u00e8re, \u00e9tablissent donc :\r\n\r\n que le Monde a un lieu (fixe) ;\r\n que le Monde se meut localement.\r\n\r\nIls triomphent ainsi des apories dans lesquelles s'engageait la pens\u00e9e d'Aristote. [conclusion p. 161]","btype":2,"date":"1979","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2CpsO1R1mVMqjay","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":183,"full_name":"Aujac, Germaine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":184,"full_name":"Soubiran, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":510,"section_of":140,"pages":"143-161","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":140,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"L'Astronomie dans l'antiquit\u00e9 classique. Actes du Colloque tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21\u201323 Octobre, 1977","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aujac\/Soubiran1979","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1979","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1979","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TPeLfUa6KvbM1BN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":140,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Anciennes","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius: Corollarium de loco"]}

Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension, 1987
By: Sorabji, Richard, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 148-165
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
What conclusions can now be drawn? It is time to say that I do not think Aristotle reached the point of consciously thinking that extension would play the role of prime matter. It took the Neoplatonist Simplicius to interpret him that way, motivated by reasons of his own.

The diffuseness of extension will have seemed important to Simplicius because it puts prime matter where it should be, at the opposite extreme from the unity of the One. He knew that Plato had been taken as identifying prime matter with space or with other kinds of extension, and, although he disagreed, he thought he found the justification for such an interpretation of Aristotle at least in Phys. 4,2, if not in the Metaphysics as well.

But even if Simplicius' interpretation does not represent Aristotle's conscious thought, it opens new vistas. For one thing, I believe that extension would fit with Aristotle's conception of prime matter, and fit better than anything else that has been proposed. Furthermore, in considering how it would fit, we have been forced to consider a network of interlocking parts of Aristotle's philosophy.

Some of the parts would require modification if extension were to be openly acknowledged as playing the role of prime matter, but the resulting modifications would yield a coherent view. Finally, views of the same general sort, which treat body as some kind of extension endowed with properties, have recurred through the ages, for example in Descartes, in Newton, and in twentieth-century physics. [conclusion p. 162-163]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"487","_score":null,"_source":{"id":487,"authors_free":[{"id":665,"entry_id":487,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":666,"entry_id":487,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension"},"abstract":"What conclusions can now be drawn? It is time to say that I do not think Aristotle reached the point of consciously thinking that extension would play the role of prime matter. It took the Neoplatonist Simplicius to interpret him that way, motivated by reasons of his own.\r\n\r\nThe diffuseness of extension will have seemed important to Simplicius because it puts prime matter where it should be, at the opposite extreme from the unity of the One. He knew that Plato had been taken as identifying prime matter with space or with other kinds of extension, and, although he disagreed, he thought he found the justification for such an interpretation of Aristotle at least in Phys. 4,2, if not in the Metaphysics as well.\r\n\r\nBut even if Simplicius' interpretation does not represent Aristotle's conscious thought, it opens new vistas. For one thing, I believe that extension would fit with Aristotle's conception of prime matter, and fit better than anything else that has been proposed. Furthermore, in considering how it would fit, we have been forced to consider a network of interlocking parts of Aristotle's philosophy.\r\n\r\nSome of the parts would require modification if extension were to be openly acknowledged as playing the role of prime matter, but the resulting modifications would yield a coherent view. Finally, views of the same general sort, which treat body as some kind of extension endowed with properties, have recurred through the ages, for example in Descartes, in Newton, and in twentieth-century physics. [conclusion p. 162-163]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h6HONd1UnE1D8Vw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":487,"section_of":171,"pages":"148-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension"]}

Simplikios in der arabischen Überlieferung, 1982
By: Gätje, Helmut
Title Simplikios in der arabischen Überlieferung
Type Article
Language German
Date 1982
Journal Der Islam; Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients
Volume 59
Pages 6-31
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gätje, Helmut
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Wenn Simplikios in der philosophischen Tradition des Islams nicht zu einer so festen  Größe  geworden  ist  wie  Alexander  von  Aphrodisias  oder  Themistios, so hängt das mit der historischen Stellung dieser Exegeten inner­halb der peripatetischen Schule zusammen. Ihnen gegenüber ist Simplikios nachgeboren.  Auf der anderen  Seite  hat aber offenbar sein  Zeitgenosse Johannes Philoponos, dem freilich im islamischen Bereich zu Unrecht eine Reihe medizinischer Werke zugeschrieben wurden, einen größeren Wider­hall gefunden, was wiederum mit Ausgangspunkt und Wegen der Überlie­ferung  zusammenhängt.  Wenn  man  dem  Urteil  Praechters  folgt  und  in Simplikios einen der bedeutendsten Kommentatoren des Altertums sieht, so  stehen diese Bewertung  des  Simplikios  und  seine Wirkung  im Islam nicht im  rechten Verhältnis  zueinander. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"540","_score":null,"_source":{"id":540,"authors_free":[{"id":764,"entry_id":540,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":134,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"G\u00e4tje, Helmut ","free_first_name":"Helmut ","free_last_name":"G\u00e4tje","norm_person":{"id":134,"first_name":"Helmut ","last_name":"G\u00e4tje","full_name":"G\u00e4tje, Helmut ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1021419966","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplikios in der arabischen \u00dcberlieferung","main_title":{"title":"Simplikios in der arabischen \u00dcberlieferung"},"abstract":"Wenn Simplikios in der philosophischen Tradition des Islams nicht zu einer so festen Gr\u00f6\u00dfe geworden ist wie Alexander von Aphrodisias oder Themistios, so h\u00e4ngt das mit der historischen Stellung dieser Exegeten inner\u00adhalb der peripatetischen Schule zusammen. Ihnen gegen\u00fcber ist Simplikios nachgeboren. Auf der anderen Seite hat aber offenbar sein Zeitgenosse Johannes Philoponos, dem freilich im islamischen Bereich zu Unrecht eine Reihe medizinischer Werke zugeschrieben wurden, einen gr\u00f6\u00dferen Wider\u00adhall gefunden, was wiederum mit Ausgangspunkt und Wegen der \u00dcberlie\u00adferung zusammenh\u00e4ngt. Wenn man dem Urteil Praechters folgt und in Simplikios einen der bedeutendsten Kommentatoren des Altertums sieht, so stehen diese Bewertung des Simplikios und seine Wirkung im Islam nicht im rechten Verh\u00e4ltnis zueinander. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nULzjIVmZSFqXQi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":134,"full_name":"G\u00e4tje, Helmut ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":540,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Der Islam; Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients","volume":"59","issue":"","pages":"6-31"}},"sort":["Simplikios in der arabischen \u00dcberlieferung"]}

Simplikios: Über die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore, 1982
By: Sonderegger, Erwin, Simplicius
Title Simplikios: Über die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore
Type Monograph
Language German
Date 1982
Publication Place Göttingen
Publisher Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
Series Hypomnemata
Volume 70
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sonderegger, Erwin , Simplicius
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In dieser Arbeit sollen die Gedanken des Simplikios zum Thema ,Zeit‘ nachgedacht und dadurch einem weiteren Kreis zugänglich gemacht wer¬den. Als Bezugstext dieses Nachdenkens wird das sogenannte ,Corollarium de tempore gewählt. Dieser Text am Ende der ersten Hälfte des Physik¬kommentars von Simplikios bildet eine Art Anhang zum Kommentar der Zeitabhandlung. An dieser Stelle trägt Simplikios ausdrücklich seine 
eigenen Gedanken zum Thema Zeit vor. In dem hier geübten Nach¬denken soll der Gedanke des Simplikios in seiner ganzen Entfaltung wiederholt werden. Wenn die vorliegende Arbeit dem Verständnis dieses Textes geholfen und dadurch einen Einblick in die Sache möglich ge¬
macht hat, dann hat sie ihren Zweck erfüllt.Das Hauptinteresse gilt also dem Gedanken des Simplikios in seinem eigenen Wert und Gehalt, weniger seiner philosophiegeschichtlichen Ein¬ordnung. Denn um sagen zu können, wo und wie dieser Gedanke einzu¬ordnen ist, müßte schon klar sein, was in ihm gedacht ist. Da dies nicht der Fall ist, ist die verlangte Einordnung noch gar nicht möglich. Ebenso unmöglich aber ist es, einen Gedanken ohne alle Voraussetzungen zu verstehen. Jedes Verstehen geht von zum Teil jedem menschlichen Tun, zum Teil dem Denken spezifischen Voraussetzungen aus. Auch diese Ar¬beit enthält deshalb mannigfache Voraussetzungen allgemeinster Art, auf die hier nicht eingegangen werden kann, dann aber auch Voraussetzungen spezieller Art, besonders aus dem Gebiet der Literatur- und der Geistes¬geschichte. Da diese weder selbstverständlich noch für alle, die an ähnliehen Themen arbeiten, gleich sind, sollen die Voraussetzungen dieser Arbeit in einer Einführung vorgestellt werden. Dies geschieht in der Hoffnung, daß dadurch die einzelnen Äußerungen des Kommentars leichter verständlich werden.Die Themen dieser Einführung ergeben sich aus folgenden Überlegungen. 
Das Werk des Simplikios hat die literarische Form eines Kommentars.Es handelt sich dabei aber nicht um einen Kommentar im modernen Sinne des Wortes, denn es ist nicht sein Zweck, in der Form gesammel¬ter Anmerkungen ein .technisches Hilfsmittel zu sein, sondern Kom¬mentieren heißt für Simplikios Philosophieren. Auf dieses Kommentar¬verständnis ist also in der Einführung näher einzugehen. [Introduction p. 13-14]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"235","_score":null,"_source":{"id":235,"authors_free":[{"id":301,"entry_id":235,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":322,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sonderegger, Erwin","free_first_name":"Erwin","free_last_name":"Sonderegger","norm_person":{"id":322,"first_name":"Erwin","last_name":"Sonderegger","full_name":"Sonderegger, Erwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130152013","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2313,"entry_id":235,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore","main_title":{"title":"Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore"},"abstract":"In dieser Arbeit sollen die Gedanken des Simplikios zum Thema ,Zeit\u2018 nachgedacht und dadurch einem weiteren Kreis zug\u00e4nglich gemacht wer\u00acden. Als Bezugstext dieses Nachdenkens wird das sogenannte ,Corollarium de tempore gew\u00e4hlt. Dieser Text am Ende der ersten H\u00e4lfte des Physik\u00ackommentars von Simplikios bildet eine Art Anhang zum Kommentar der Zeitabhandlung. An dieser Stelle tr\u00e4gt Simplikios ausdr\u00fccklich seine \r\neigenen Gedanken zum Thema Zeit vor. In dem hier ge\u00fcbten Nach\u00acdenken soll der Gedanke des Simplikios in seiner ganzen Entfaltung wiederholt werden. Wenn die vorliegende Arbeit dem Verst\u00e4ndnis dieses Textes geholfen und dadurch einen Einblick in die Sache m\u00f6glich ge\u00ac\r\nmacht hat, dann hat sie ihren Zweck erf\u00fcllt.Das Hauptinteresse gilt also dem Gedanken des Simplikios in seinem eigenen Wert und Gehalt, weniger seiner philosophiegeschichtlichen Ein\u00acordnung. Denn um sagen zu k\u00f6nnen, wo und wie dieser Gedanke einzu\u00acordnen ist, m\u00fc\u00dfte schon klar sein, was in ihm gedacht ist. Da dies nicht der Fall ist, ist die verlangte Einordnung noch gar nicht m\u00f6glich. Ebenso unm\u00f6glich aber ist es, einen Gedanken ohne alle Voraussetzungen zu verstehen. Jedes Verstehen geht von zum Teil jedem menschlichen Tun, zum Teil dem Denken spezifischen Voraussetzungen aus. Auch diese Ar\u00acbeit enth\u00e4lt deshalb mannigfache Voraussetzungen allgemeinster Art, auf die hier nicht eingegangen werden kann, dann aber auch Voraussetzungen spezieller Art, besonders aus dem Gebiet der Literatur- und der Geistes\u00acgeschichte. Da diese weder selbstverst\u00e4ndlich noch f\u00fcr alle, die an \u00e4hnliehen Themen arbeiten, gleich sind, sollen die Voraussetzungen dieser Arbeit in einer Einf\u00fchrung vorgestellt werden. Dies geschieht in der Hoffnung, da\u00df dadurch die einzelnen \u00c4u\u00dferungen des Kommentars leichter verst\u00e4ndlich werden.Die Themen dieser Einf\u00fchrung ergeben sich aus folgenden \u00dcberlegungen. \r\nDas Werk des Simplikios hat die literarische Form eines Kommentars.Es handelt sich dabei aber nicht um einen Kommentar im modernen Sinne des Wortes, denn es ist nicht sein Zweck, in der Form gesammel\u00acter Anmerkungen ein .technisches Hilfsmittel zu sein, sondern Kom\u00acmentieren hei\u00dft f\u00fcr Simplikios Philosophieren. Auf dieses Kommentar\u00acverst\u00e4ndnis ist also in der Einf\u00fchrung n\u00e4her einzugehen. [Introduction p. 13-14]","btype":1,"date":"1982","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dkf2hbbbbjfRfuu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":322,"full_name":"Sonderegger, Erwin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":235,"pubplace":"G\u00f6ttingen","publisher":"Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht","series":"Hypomnemata","volume":"70","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Simplikios: \u00dcber die Zeit. Ein Kommentar zum Corollarium de tempore"]}

Some Concepts in Physical Theory in John Philoponus' Aristotelian Commentaries, 1980
By: Todd, Robert B.
Title Some Concepts in Physical Theory in John Philoponus' Aristotelian Commentaries
Type Article
Language English
Date 1980
Journal Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte
Volume 24
Issue 2
Pages 151-170
Categories no categories
Author(s) Todd, Robert B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
I have tried, then, to establish the significance of some ideas in Philoponus' commentaries that, in different ways, reveal this commentator's individuality. Individuality is not, of course, the same as originality, and indeed both my examples have shown how dependent Philoponus was on the many philosophical sources that converge in his commentaries. But this very complexity, at times reaching an eclectic inconsistency, is what makes the Aristotelian exegetical tradition in antiquity worth continued study.

At their best, these commentaries involve the interaction between, on the one hand, an inventive commentator with prejudices of his own and, on the other hand, a mass of inherited material. The result may not always illuminate Aristotle, but it will invariably shed light on the continuity of the Greek philosophical tradition in late antiquity. [conclusion p. 170]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"842","_score":null,"_source":{"id":842,"authors_free":[{"id":1246,"entry_id":842,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":340,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, Robert B.","free_first_name":"Robert B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":{"id":340,"first_name":"Robert B.","last_name":"Todd","full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129460788","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Concepts in Physical Theory in John Philoponus' Aristotelian Commentaries","main_title":{"title":"Some Concepts in Physical Theory in John Philoponus' Aristotelian Commentaries"},"abstract":"I have tried, then, to establish the significance of some ideas in Philoponus' commentaries that, in different ways, reveal this commentator's individuality. Individuality is not, of course, the same as originality, and indeed both my examples have shown how dependent Philoponus was on the many philosophical sources that converge in his commentaries. But this very complexity, at times reaching an eclectic inconsistency, is what makes the Aristotelian exegetical tradition in antiquity worth continued study.\r\n\r\nAt their best, these commentaries involve the interaction between, on the one hand, an inventive commentator with prejudices of his own and, on the other hand, a mass of inherited material. The result may not always illuminate Aristotle, but it will invariably shed light on the continuity of the Greek philosophical tradition in late antiquity. [conclusion p. 170]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6cdjUb25vOM63SC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":842,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"24","issue":"2","pages":"151-170"}},"sort":["Some Concepts in Physical Theory in John Philoponus' Aristotelian Commentaries"]}

Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World, 1981
By: Verbeke, Gérard, O'Meara, Dominic J. (Ed.)
Title Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1981
Published in Neoplatonism and Christian thought
Pages 45-53
Categories no categories
Author(s) Verbeke, Gérard
Editor(s) O'Meara, Dominic J.
Translator(s)
The  commentary  of  Simplicius  on  Aristotle’s  Physics  is  particularly  inter­
esting  thanks  to  the  rich  information  it  provides  concerning  the  doctrines  of pre­
vious  philosophers.  His  interpretation  shows  a  great erudition,  but  it  is  not  always 
faithful  to  the  authentic  thought  of  Aristotle.  The  first  cause  of  Aristotle  is  not 
that  of  Simplicius  and  this  is  not  the  only  case  in  which  Simplicius  gave  to 
Aristotelian thought a turn that does not correspond to its original content.  A similar 
distortion  may  be  found  in  the  interpretation  of  the  intricate  question  of  chance 
and  fortune.  It  is  more  difficult  to  formulate  a  judgment  about  the  commentary 
of  Philoponus:  to  what  extent  does  it  reflect  the  teaching  of  Ammonius?  In  any 
case,  the  interpretation  is  very  penetrating,  especially  in  those  passages  where 
the  author  criticizes  the  doctrine  of  Aristotle  and  expresses  manifestly  his  own 
ideas.  Alfarabi  takes  Philoponus  to  task  for  settling  a  philosophical  question  with 
the  help  of  religious  doctrines:60  nothing  is  less  true,  as  W.  Wieland  has  already 
noticed.  Philoponus,  rather,  uses  Aristotelian  philosophy  in  order  to  refute 
Aristotle.61  On  the  other  hand  he  appeals  to  the  concept  of  creation  against  the eternity  of the  world:  he  very  sharply  notices,  perhaps  also  under  the  influence of 
Ammonius,  that  creation  as  an  integral  causation  is  not  a  movement  and  does  not 
belong to the continuous process of coming-to-be and passing away. Thanks mainly 
to  the  concept  of  creation,  the  author  escapes  from  the  eternity  of  movement 
and  time. [conclusion p. 52-53]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"450","_score":null,"_source":{"id":450,"authors_free":[{"id":603,"entry_id":450,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":604,"entry_id":450,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World","main_title":{"title":"Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World"},"abstract":"The commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle\u2019s Physics is particularly inter\u00ad\r\nesting thanks to the rich information it provides concerning the doctrines of pre\u00ad\r\nvious philosophers. His interpretation shows a great erudition, but it is not always \r\nfaithful to the authentic thought of Aristotle. The first cause of Aristotle is not \r\nthat of Simplicius and this is not the only case in which Simplicius gave to \r\nAristotelian thought a turn that does not correspond to its original content. A similar \r\ndistortion may be found in the interpretation of the intricate question of chance \r\nand fortune. It is more difficult to formulate a judgment about the commentary \r\nof Philoponus: to what extent does it reflect the teaching of Ammonius? In any \r\ncase, the interpretation is very penetrating, especially in those passages where \r\nthe author criticizes the doctrine of Aristotle and expresses manifestly his own \r\nideas. Alfarabi takes Philoponus to task for settling a philosophical question with \r\nthe help of religious doctrines:60 nothing is less true, as W. Wieland has already \r\nnoticed. Philoponus, rather, uses Aristotelian philosophy in order to refute \r\nAristotle.61 On the other hand he appeals to the concept of creation against the eternity of the world: he very sharply notices, perhaps also under the influence of \r\nAmmonius, that creation as an integral causation is not a movement and does not \r\nbelong to the continuous process of coming-to-be and passing away. Thanks mainly \r\nto the concept of creation, the author escapes from the eternity of movement \r\nand time. [conclusion p. 52-53]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QSUX1JffS4trd4H","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":450,"section_of":12,"pages":"45-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":12,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"O'Meara1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines\u2014classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8tb5ZmmacZhgjDn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":12,"pubplace":"Albany","publisher":"State University of New York Press","series":"Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World"]}

Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982, 1982
By: Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Lloyd, Antony C. (Ed.)
Title Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 1982
Publication Place Liverpool
Publisher Liverpool University Press
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Lloyd, Antony C.
Translator(s)
This short and not inexpensive book contains the papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool on 15-16 April 1982. There are four papers dealing in turn with 'Monad and Dyad as Cosmic Principles in Syrianus' by A. D. R. Sheppard; 'Procession and Division in Proclus' by A. C. Lloyd; 'La doctrine de Simplicius sur l'âme raisonnable humaine dans le Commentaire sur le manuel d'Epictète' by I. Hadot, and fourthly 'The Psychology of (?) Simplicius' Commentary on the De anima' by H. J. Blumenthal. The other participants in the colloquium must have made it a memorable and worthwhile, though rather short-lived occasion. The foremost living experts in the field of later Platonism were present, including A. H. Armstrong, P. Hadot, J. Rist, and A. Smith.
Arguably the most interesting feature of the collection is the difference of opinion among at least two of the participants about the validity of C. G. Steel's 'The changing self: a study of the soul in later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius, and Priscianus' (cf. the review by A. Smith in JHS 100 [1980]). There, it is argued that the three authors mentioned were the only later Platonists to teach the mutability as distinct from the fall of the soul. So it is well enough known that Proclus dissented from Plotinus in his assertion at e.g. Elements 211 that the soul completely falls. But it is also argued that Proclus dissented from Iamblichus in denying the changeableness of the fallen soul. With Steel's hypothesis, Blumenthal is in a large measure of agreement, whereas Ilsetraut Hadot feels that such a view is oversimplified. She suggests that even Plotinus is prepared to admit a greater degree of alteration in the soul than some exegetes allow for. It must be said in defense of her position that despite the evidence of Ennead 4.8.8 and 4.1, there are disturbing passages at 4.4.3 and 5.1.1 which challenge a too simple evaluation of Plotinus. In this particular collection, the issue is rather over the interpretation of Simplicius, De Anima 220.2-4 (cf. p. 91). Blumenthal argues that Simplicius' language need only mean that the soul has a temporary change. Against such an interpretation, Hadot argues that it overlooks the fact that Simplicius was a pupil of Damascius and he certainly believed in the change of the human soul. Perhaps, though, the views are not as far apart as the foregoing remarks may suggest. After all, it is hard to be supposed that the change in the soul argued for by Iamblichus and his followers was in itself irreversible. The whole Platonist school had to offer some sort of rationale for the obvious fact of the weakness and sinfulness of the human being. Whether one talks of 'fall', 'change', or 'weakness' seems hardly to matter. Nor is the problem restricted to pagans. A few apt quotations from St. Augustine illustrate the universal nature of the problem which faces any thinker who is prepared to take seriously both the goodness of the human soul and the existence of evil. (Review by Anthony Meredith)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"133","_score":null,"_source":{"id":133,"authors_free":[{"id":164,"entry_id":133,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":165,"entry_id":133,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":465,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}}],"entry_title":"Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982","main_title":{"title":"Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982"},"abstract":"This short and not inexpensive book contains the papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool on 15-16 April 1982. There are four papers dealing in turn with 'Monad and Dyad as Cosmic Principles in Syrianus' by A. D. R. Sheppard; 'Procession and Division in Proclus' by A. C. Lloyd; 'La doctrine de Simplicius sur l'\u00e2me raisonnable humaine dans le Commentaire sur le manuel d'Epict\u00e8te' by I. Hadot, and fourthly 'The Psychology of (?) Simplicius' Commentary on the De anima' by H. J. Blumenthal. The other participants in the colloquium must have made it a memorable and worthwhile, though rather short-lived occasion. The foremost living experts in the field of later Platonism were present, including A. H. Armstrong, P. Hadot, J. Rist, and A. Smith.\r\nArguably the most interesting feature of the collection is the difference of opinion among at least two of the participants about the validity of C. G. Steel's 'The changing self: a study of the soul in later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius, and Priscianus' (cf. the review by A. Smith in JHS 100 [1980]). There, it is argued that the three authors mentioned were the only later Platonists to teach the mutability as distinct from the fall of the soul. So it is well enough known that Proclus dissented from Plotinus in his assertion at e.g. Elements 211 that the soul completely falls. But it is also argued that Proclus dissented from Iamblichus in denying the changeableness of the fallen soul. With Steel's hypothesis, Blumenthal is in a large measure of agreement, whereas Ilsetraut Hadot feels that such a view is oversimplified. She suggests that even Plotinus is prepared to admit a greater degree of alteration in the soul than some exegetes allow for. It must be said in defense of her position that despite the evidence of Ennead 4.8.8 and 4.1, there are disturbing passages at 4.4.3 and 5.1.1 which challenge a too simple evaluation of Plotinus. In this particular collection, the issue is rather over the interpretation of Simplicius, De Anima 220.2-4 (cf. p. 91). Blumenthal argues that Simplicius' language need only mean that the soul has a temporary change. Against such an interpretation, Hadot argues that it overlooks the fact that Simplicius was a pupil of Damascius and he certainly believed in the change of the human soul. Perhaps, though, the views are not as far apart as the foregoing remarks may suggest. After all, it is hard to be supposed that the change in the soul argued for by Iamblichus and his followers was in itself irreversible. The whole Platonist school had to offer some sort of rationale for the obvious fact of the weakness and sinfulness of the human being. Whether one talks of 'fall', 'change', or 'weakness' seems hardly to matter. Nor is the problem restricted to pagans. A few apt quotations from St. Augustine illustrate the universal nature of the problem which faces any thinker who is prepared to take seriously both the goodness of the human soul and the existence of evil. (Review by Anthony Meredith)","btype":4,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lObq1J6nadR8CdJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":465,"full_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":133,"pubplace":"Liverpool","publisher":"Liverpool University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism : Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius ; Papers and discussions of a colloquium held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982"]}

Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy, 1978
By: Tarán, Leonardo
Title Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy
Type Article
Language English
Date 1978
Journal Hermes
Volume 106
Issue 1
Pages 73-99
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarán, Leonardo
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Modern scholarship since the middle of the last century has generally accepted it as an established fact that Speusippus made an exhaustive classification of words or names (onomata) in relation to the concepts they express and that he gave definitions of homonyma and synonyma only in reference to words and their meanings. That is to say, for him, homonyma and synonyma are properties of linguistic terms and not of things, whereas for Aristotle, especially in the first chapter of the Categories, they are properties of things.

In 1904, E. Hambruch attempted to show that sometimes Aristotle himself uses synonyma in the Speusippean sense just outlined and that in so doing, he was influenced by Speusippus. This thesis of Hambruch has been accepted by several scholars, including Lang, Stenzel, and Cherniss. Although some doubts about its soundness were expressed from different perspectives, it was only in 1971 that Mr. Jonathan Barnes made a systematic assault on it. Barnes contends, first, that Speusippus’s conception of homonyma and synonyma is essentially the same as that of Aristotle, with the slight differences between their respective definitions being trivial, and second, that even though Aristotle occasionally uses homonyma and synonyma as properties of linguistic terms, this is because Aristotle's use of these words is not as rigid as the Categories might suggest. Barnes argues that Aristotle could not have been influenced by Speusippus, because Speusippus conceived homonymy and synonymy as properties of things, and, in any case, if influence were assumed, it could as well have been Aristotle influencing Speusippus.

Though I believe Barnes’ two main contentions are mistaken, I am here mainly concerned with the first part of his thesis. If he were right in believing that, for Speusippus, homonyma and synonyma are properties of things and not of names or linguistic terms, then Hambruch’s notion that Speusippus influenced Aristotle when the latter uses synonymon as a property of names would be wrong, even if Barnes were mistaken in his analysis of the Aristotelian passages he reviews in the second part of his paper.

On the other hand, if Speusippus's classification is truly of onomata, then, since Barnes himself admits that Aristotle sometimes uses homonyma and synonyma as properties of names, the influence of Speusippus on Aristotle is at least possible. It becomes plausible and probable—regardless of the relative chronology of their respective works—when it is seen, as I shall try to show, that in some cases, Aristotle is in fact attacking doctrines that presuppose a use of homonyma and synonyma such as can be ascribed to Speusippus or is using synonymon in the Speusippean sense, different from Aristotle's own notion of synonymous words. [introduction p. 73-75]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"843","_score":null,"_source":{"id":843,"authors_free":[{"id":1247,"entry_id":843,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy","main_title":{"title":"Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy"},"abstract":"Modern scholarship since the middle of the last century has generally accepted it as an established fact that Speusippus made an exhaustive classification of words or names (onomata) in relation to the concepts they express and that he gave definitions of homonyma and synonyma only in reference to words and their meanings. That is to say, for him, homonyma and synonyma are properties of linguistic terms and not of things, whereas for Aristotle, especially in the first chapter of the Categories, they are properties of things.\r\n\r\nIn 1904, E. Hambruch attempted to show that sometimes Aristotle himself uses synonyma in the Speusippean sense just outlined and that in so doing, he was influenced by Speusippus. This thesis of Hambruch has been accepted by several scholars, including Lang, Stenzel, and Cherniss. Although some doubts about its soundness were expressed from different perspectives, it was only in 1971 that Mr. Jonathan Barnes made a systematic assault on it. Barnes contends, first, that Speusippus\u2019s conception of homonyma and synonyma is essentially the same as that of Aristotle, with the slight differences between their respective definitions being trivial, and second, that even though Aristotle occasionally uses homonyma and synonyma as properties of linguistic terms, this is because Aristotle's use of these words is not as rigid as the Categories might suggest. Barnes argues that Aristotle could not have been influenced by Speusippus, because Speusippus conceived homonymy and synonymy as properties of things, and, in any case, if influence were assumed, it could as well have been Aristotle influencing Speusippus.\r\n\r\nThough I believe Barnes\u2019 two main contentions are mistaken, I am here mainly concerned with the first part of his thesis. If he were right in believing that, for Speusippus, homonyma and synonyma are properties of things and not of names or linguistic terms, then Hambruch\u2019s notion that Speusippus influenced Aristotle when the latter uses synonymon as a property of names would be wrong, even if Barnes were mistaken in his analysis of the Aristotelian passages he reviews in the second part of his paper.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, if Speusippus's classification is truly of onomata, then, since Barnes himself admits that Aristotle sometimes uses homonyma and synonyma as properties of names, the influence of Speusippus on Aristotle is at least possible. It becomes plausible and probable\u2014regardless of the relative chronology of their respective works\u2014when it is seen, as I shall try to show, that in some cases, Aristotle is in fact attacking doctrines that presuppose a use of homonyma and synonyma such as can be ascribed to Speusippus or is using synonymon in the Speusippean sense, different from Aristotle's own notion of synonymous words. [introduction p. 73-75]","btype":3,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DXL3umbA2JfHxYC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":843,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"106","issue":"1","pages":"73-99"}},"sort":["Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy"]}

Strato’s theory of the void, 1985
By: Furley, David J. , Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Strato’s theory of the void
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1985
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule
Pages 594-609
Categories no categories
Author(s) Furley, David J.
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
At the  beginning  of his  Corollary on  Place  (In  Phys.  601,  14-24), 
Simplicius  classifies  theories  about  place,  as  follows.  First,  there  is  a 
distinction  between  those  who  make  place  a  corporeal  thing  and 
those  who  suppose  it  is  incorporeal.  Only  Proclus  falls  into  the  first 
class.  O f the  latter,  some  think  it  is  without extension,  the  rest  think 
it  is  extended. The first group  consists  of Plato, who said place  is  the 
material  substrate  of  bodies,  and  Damascius,  who  said  it  is  that 
which  completes  the  nature  of  bodies.  The  second  group  is  further 
subdivided,  into  those  who  held  place  to  be  extended  in  two  dimen­
sions,  “as  Aristotle  and  the  whole  Peripatos  did”,  and  those  who 
gave  it  three  dimensions.  The  latter  can  be  subdivided  again:  on  the 
one  hand,  there  is  the  school  of  Democritus  and  Epicurus, who  held 
that  place  is  everywhere  undifferentiated,  and  sometimes  persists 
without  any  body  in  it,  and  on  the  other  hand,  “the  famous  Plato- 
nists  and  Strato  of  Lampsacus”,  who  said  that  place  is  an  extended 
interval  (diastema)  that  always  contains  body  and  is  adapted  to  its 
particular  occupant... [p. 594]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"785","_score":null,"_source":{"id":785,"authors_free":[{"id":1157,"entry_id":785,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":103,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Furley, David J. ","free_first_name":"David J. ","free_last_name":"Furley","norm_person":{"id":103,"first_name":"David J. ","last_name":"Furley","full_name":"Furley, David J. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138978131","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2354,"entry_id":785,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Strato\u2019s theory of the void","main_title":{"title":"Strato\u2019s theory of the void"},"abstract":"At the beginning of his Corollary on Place (In Phys. 601, 14-24), \r\nSimplicius classifies theories about place, as follows. First, there is a \r\ndistinction between those who make place a corporeal thing and \r\nthose who suppose it is incorporeal. Only Proclus falls into the first \r\nclass. O f the latter, some think it is without extension, the rest think \r\nit is extended. The first group consists of Plato, who said place is the \r\nmaterial substrate of bodies, and Damascius, who said it is that \r\nwhich completes the nature of bodies. The second group is further \r\nsubdivided, into those who held place to be extended in two dimen\u00ad\r\nsions, \u201cas Aristotle and the whole Peripatos did\u201d, and those who \r\ngave it three dimensions. The latter can be subdivided again: on the \r\none hand, there is the school of Democritus and Epicurus, who held \r\nthat place is everywhere undifferentiated, and sometimes persists \r\nwithout any body in it, and on the other hand, \u201cthe famous Plato- \r\nnists and Strato of Lampsacus\u201d, who said that place is an extended \r\ninterval (diastema) that always contains body and is adapted to its \r\nparticular occupant... [p. 594]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/67tMakGWPrXgZyV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":103,"full_name":"Furley, David J. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":785,"section_of":190,"pages":"594-609","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":190,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Plezia\/Verdenius\/P\u00e9pin1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Strato\u2019s theory of the void"]}

Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio, 1988
By: Linguiti, Alessandro
Title Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio
Type Article
Language Italian
Date 1988
Journal Studi Classici e Orientali
Volume 38
Pages 331–346
Categories no categories
Author(s) Linguiti, Alessandro
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
I commentatori neoplatonici di Aristotele sono stati probabilmente gli ultimi a beneficiare del generale risveglio d’interesse per il neoplatonismo che, manifestatosi a partire dal secondo dopoguerra, sta divenendo sempre più evidente negli ultimi anni. Per lungo tempo, come è stato osservato, essi hanno occupato una sorta di terra di nessuno tra la filosofia antica e quella medievale. Inoltre, gli studiosi di neoplatonismo hanno preferito concentrare la loro attenzione sulle opere teoriche originali piuttosto che sui commentari, mentre i moderni interpreti di Aristotele, a differenza di quelli medievali, arabi o cristiani, hanno generalmente trascurato il commento greco, interpellandolo perlopiù su questioni particolari e circoscritte, e quasi mai esaminandolo nel suo impianto generale.

Anche Simplicio ha condiviso questa sorte, e se il suo nome suona più familiare di quello di altri autori neoplatonici, ciò è dovuto essenzialmente all’importanza della sua testimonianza sulla scuola eleatica e all’interesse suscitato dalle dottrine contenute nel Corollario sul tempo: due elementi tutto sommato marginali ai fini di una valutazione complessiva del suo pensiero.

Negli ultimi tempi, tuttavia, il panorama si sta modificando. Basti pensare, ad esempio, al libro di Ilsetraut Hadot sul neoplatonismo alessandrino apparso dieci anni fa, o a un convegno tenutosi a Parigi nell’autunno del 1985, con il patrocinio del Centre de recherche sur les œuvres et la pensée de Simplicius. Questo evento ha confermato la serietà dell’intento di leggere oggi i commentari neoplatonici come opere filosofiche a sé stanti, dotate di una propria coerenza interna e di un’autonoma responsabilità teorica.

Gli atti del convegno, curati da Ilsetraut Hadot, sono stati pubblicati nel 1987: le relazioni presentate sono state distribuite in quattro sezioni, riguardanti rispettivamente le vicende biografiche di Simplicio, gli aspetti dottrinali dell’opera, le questioni attinenti alla trasmissione dei testi e la fortuna dell’autore nell’arco di tempo compreso tra il XIII e il XVII secolo.
[introduction p. 331-332]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"871","_score":null,"_source":{"id":871,"authors_free":[{"id":1280,"entry_id":871,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":250,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Linguiti, Alessandro","free_first_name":"Alessandro","free_last_name":"Linguiti","norm_person":{"id":250,"first_name":"Alessandro","last_name":"Linguiti","full_name":"Linguiti, Alessandro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137059574","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio"},"abstract":"I commentatori neoplatonici di Aristotele sono stati probabilmente gli ultimi a beneficiare del generale risveglio d\u2019interesse per il neoplatonismo che, manifestatosi a partire dal secondo dopoguerra, sta divenendo sempre pi\u00f9 evidente negli ultimi anni. Per lungo tempo, come \u00e8 stato osservato, essi hanno occupato una sorta di terra di nessuno tra la filosofia antica e quella medievale. Inoltre, gli studiosi di neoplatonismo hanno preferito concentrare la loro attenzione sulle opere teoriche originali piuttosto che sui commentari, mentre i moderni interpreti di Aristotele, a differenza di quelli medievali, arabi o cristiani, hanno generalmente trascurato il commento greco, interpellandolo perlopi\u00f9 su questioni particolari e circoscritte, e quasi mai esaminandolo nel suo impianto generale.\r\n\r\nAnche Simplicio ha condiviso questa sorte, e se il suo nome suona pi\u00f9 familiare di quello di altri autori neoplatonici, ci\u00f2 \u00e8 dovuto essenzialmente all\u2019importanza della sua testimonianza sulla scuola eleatica e all\u2019interesse suscitato dalle dottrine contenute nel Corollario sul tempo: due elementi tutto sommato marginali ai fini di una valutazione complessiva del suo pensiero.\r\n\r\nNegli ultimi tempi, tuttavia, il panorama si sta modificando. Basti pensare, ad esempio, al libro di Ilsetraut Hadot sul neoplatonismo alessandrino apparso dieci anni fa, o a un convegno tenutosi a Parigi nell\u2019autunno del 1985, con il patrocinio del Centre de recherche sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius. Questo evento ha confermato la seriet\u00e0 dell\u2019intento di leggere oggi i commentari neoplatonici come opere filosofiche a s\u00e9 stanti, dotate di una propria coerenza interna e di un\u2019autonoma responsabilit\u00e0 teorica.\r\n\r\nGli atti del convegno, curati da Ilsetraut Hadot, sono stati pubblicati nel 1987: le relazioni presentate sono state distribuite in quattro sezioni, riguardanti rispettivamente le vicende biografiche di Simplicio, gli aspetti dottrinali dell\u2019opera, le questioni attinenti alla trasmissione dei testi e la fortuna dell\u2019autore nell\u2019arco di tempo compreso tra il XIII e il XVII secolo.\r\n[introduction p. 331-332]","btype":3,"date":"1988","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6LG7LMnxCvxF7RE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":250,"full_name":"Linguiti, Alessandro","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":871,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studi Classici e Orientali","volume":"38","issue":"","pages":"331\u2013346"}},"sort":["Studi recenti sulla vita e l'opera di Simplicio"]}

Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric, 1973
By: Kustas, George L.
Title Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1973
Publication Place Thessalonike
Publisher Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikon Meleton
Series Analekta Vlatadōn
Volume 17
Categories no categories
Author(s) Kustas, George L.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1515","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1515,"authors_free":[{"id":2631,"entry_id":1515,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":562,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kustas, George L. ","free_first_name":"George L. ","free_last_name":"Kustas","norm_person":{"id":562,"first_name":"George L. ","last_name":"Kustas","full_name":"Kustas, George L. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric","main_title":{"title":"Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"1973","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rxJfkOyETAdcjhw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":562,"full_name":"Kustas, George L. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1515,"pubplace":"Thessalonike ","publisher":"Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikon Meleton","series":"Analekta Vlatado\u0304n","volume":"17","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric"]}

Studies in Xenophanes, 1990
By: Finkelberg, Aryeh
Title Studies in Xenophanes
Type Article
Language English
Date 1990
Journal Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
Volume 93
Pages 103-167
Categories no categories
Author(s) Finkelberg, Aryeh
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Here, our reconstruction of Theophrastus' account can be regarded as complete: we have determined his general approach to Xenophanes' twofold teaching and dwelt on the main points of his report on Xenophanes' monistic doctrine. The examination of Xenophanes' cosmological conception, however interesting and desirable, is a separate task which should be left for another opportunity. After such a lengthy discussion, one should perhaps briefly recapitulate the results arrived at, and the best way to do this seems to be to present the Theophrastean account in the form of the ordered series of statements reconstructed above. In this list, the sources from which a given statement is excerpted or on the basis of which it is formulated are referred to by the name of the author and the page and line(s) of the Diels-Kranz edition. Statements and parts of statements that are purely conjectural are italicized.

    [Ps.-Plut.; 122.15-18] Xenophanes of Colophon, who pursued a certain way of his own different from [that of] all those spoken of beforehand [i.e., the Milesians], allows neither coming-to-be nor destruction but says that the whole is eternally selfsame.
    [Simpl.; 121.28] He says that this One and Whole is God, saying thus (fr. 23).
    [Simpl.; 121.27-28] The mention of this Xenophanean opinion rather belongs to a study other than that concerned with natural philosophy [that is, in that concerned with first philosophy].
    He says that God is ungenerated and eternal, which he proves as follows: [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.18-20] had it [the Whole or God] come to be, it is necessary for it not to be before this; but not being, it can never come to be: neither nought can produce anything nor can anything come to be by the agency of nought.
    That God is one, he proves so: [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.23-24] among gods, there can be no supremacy, for it does not suit the divine holiness that God should be under lordship; but were there many gods, there would be lords and subjects among them (perhaps also: or all of them would be lords of each other).
    [on the basis of Simpl.; 121.24-25; 122.3-6] He does not say whether God is finite or infinite.
    Nor does he say [on the basis of Simpl.; 121.25; 122.3-6] whether he is moved or unmoved.
    But [on the basis of Simpl.; 122.6-9] actually, he conceives of God as unmoved, for he calls him eternally selfsame and says (fr. 26).
    He says that God is thoroughly seeing, hearing, and thinking (fr. 24). He demonstrates this in the following way: [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.25-26] God is altogether free from any want; but had he seen, heard, and thought only in one part of him, he would be in want of these in another part; hence he sees, hears, and thinks wholly and not in one or another part of himself.
    [on the basis of Simpl.; 122.13-14] And he says that God governs all things by his mind, saying (fr. 25).
    [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.20-21; Aristocles; 126.6-8] Thus he throws out sense-perceptions while trusting logos alone.
    [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.15-18; Theophr. ap. Alex.; 219.31-33] The other way, that of accounting for the coming-to-be of existing things, he dismisses, declaring such accounts to be no more than opinion deprived of any certainty, saying this in such words (fr. 34).
    Nevertheless, he proposes some such opinion which he himself seems to adjudge plausible, as his own words show (fr. 35).
    [Theophr. ap. Alex; 219.31-33] But Parmenides, who came after him, took both ways [i.e., that of Xenophanes and that of the Milesians, cf. (1)]. For indeed, he both says that the whole is eternal and tries to account for the coming-to-be of existing things, not however thinking about both [ways] alike, but according to truth assuming the whole to be one, ungenerated, and spherical, while according to the opinion of the many, accounting for the coming-to-be of perceptible things by positing two principles: fire and earth, etc.

This reconstructed account represents that of the first book of the Physical Opinions. Indeed, (1) is the counterpart of (14), which is explicitly related by Alexander to the first book. (2)–(10) also belong there, for they either come from Simplicius' report or correct and complement it where it is wrong or incomplete, while this report itself comes from the first book of the Physical Opinions.

If Theophrastus' account was as I suggest, it seems to have been of great accuracy. True, it misrepresents Xenophanes' position in that his epistemic approach is interpreted in terms of the contrast logos:aistheseis, but this is the only major misinterpretation I can find in the account. On the whole, this is a precise report that moreover does not show any tendency to assimilate Xenophanes' teaching to that of Parmenides.

Yet it would be hard to point out even one important Parmenidean doctrine which is not, in one way or another, rooted in Xenophanes' teaching. Such is, first and foremost, the Parmenidean idea of the intelligible unity of the sensible manifold, which in Xenophanes himself was, as we have suggested, the development of one of the facets of Anaximander's Apeiron. This is the view of unity as one of two aspects—true, the most essential, significant, and sublime—but nevertheless one aspect only of reality, complementary to its other aspect, that of the manifold.
[conclusion p. 163-167]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"748","_score":null,"_source":{"id":748,"authors_free":[{"id":1113,"entry_id":748,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":113,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","free_first_name":"Aryeh","free_last_name":"Finkelberg","norm_person":{"id":113,"first_name":"Aryeh","last_name":"Finkelberg","full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1124815007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Studies in Xenophanes","main_title":{"title":"Studies in Xenophanes"},"abstract":"Here, our reconstruction of Theophrastus' account can be regarded as complete: we have determined his general approach to Xenophanes' twofold teaching and dwelt on the main points of his report on Xenophanes' monistic doctrine. The examination of Xenophanes' cosmological conception, however interesting and desirable, is a separate task which should be left for another opportunity. After such a lengthy discussion, one should perhaps briefly recapitulate the results arrived at, and the best way to do this seems to be to present the Theophrastean account in the form of the ordered series of statements reconstructed above. In this list, the sources from which a given statement is excerpted or on the basis of which it is formulated are referred to by the name of the author and the page and line(s) of the Diels-Kranz edition. Statements and parts of statements that are purely conjectural are italicized.\r\n\r\n [Ps.-Plut.; 122.15-18] Xenophanes of Colophon, who pursued a certain way of his own different from [that of] all those spoken of beforehand [i.e., the Milesians], allows neither coming-to-be nor destruction but says that the whole is eternally selfsame.\r\n [Simpl.; 121.28] He says that this One and Whole is God, saying thus (fr. 23).\r\n [Simpl.; 121.27-28] The mention of this Xenophanean opinion rather belongs to a study other than that concerned with natural philosophy [that is, in that concerned with first philosophy].\r\n He says that God is ungenerated and eternal, which he proves as follows: [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.18-20] had it [the Whole or God] come to be, it is necessary for it not to be before this; but not being, it can never come to be: neither nought can produce anything nor can anything come to be by the agency of nought.\r\n That God is one, he proves so: [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.23-24] among gods, there can be no supremacy, for it does not suit the divine holiness that God should be under lordship; but were there many gods, there would be lords and subjects among them (perhaps also: or all of them would be lords of each other).\r\n [on the basis of Simpl.; 121.24-25; 122.3-6] He does not say whether God is finite or infinite.\r\n Nor does he say [on the basis of Simpl.; 121.25; 122.3-6] whether he is moved or unmoved.\r\n But [on the basis of Simpl.; 122.6-9] actually, he conceives of God as unmoved, for he calls him eternally selfsame and says (fr. 26).\r\n He says that God is thoroughly seeing, hearing, and thinking (fr. 24). He demonstrates this in the following way: [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.25-26] God is altogether free from any want; but had he seen, heard, and thought only in one part of him, he would be in want of these in another part; hence he sees, hears, and thinks wholly and not in one or another part of himself.\r\n [on the basis of Simpl.; 122.13-14] And he says that God governs all things by his mind, saying (fr. 25).\r\n [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.20-21; Aristocles; 126.6-8] Thus he throws out sense-perceptions while trusting logos alone.\r\n [on the basis of Ps.-Plut.; 122.15-18; Theophr. ap. Alex.; 219.31-33] The other way, that of accounting for the coming-to-be of existing things, he dismisses, declaring such accounts to be no more than opinion deprived of any certainty, saying this in such words (fr. 34).\r\n Nevertheless, he proposes some such opinion which he himself seems to adjudge plausible, as his own words show (fr. 35).\r\n [Theophr. ap. Alex; 219.31-33] But Parmenides, who came after him, took both ways [i.e., that of Xenophanes and that of the Milesians, cf. (1)]. For indeed, he both says that the whole is eternal and tries to account for the coming-to-be of existing things, not however thinking about both [ways] alike, but according to truth assuming the whole to be one, ungenerated, and spherical, while according to the opinion of the many, accounting for the coming-to-be of perceptible things by positing two principles: fire and earth, etc.\r\n\r\nThis reconstructed account represents that of the first book of the Physical Opinions. Indeed, (1) is the counterpart of (14), which is explicitly related by Alexander to the first book. (2)\u2013(10) also belong there, for they either come from Simplicius' report or correct and complement it where it is wrong or incomplete, while this report itself comes from the first book of the Physical Opinions.\r\n\r\nIf Theophrastus' account was as I suggest, it seems to have been of great accuracy. True, it misrepresents Xenophanes' position in that his epistemic approach is interpreted in terms of the contrast logos:aistheseis, but this is the only major misinterpretation I can find in the account. On the whole, this is a precise report that moreover does not show any tendency to assimilate Xenophanes' teaching to that of Parmenides.\r\n\r\nYet it would be hard to point out even one important Parmenidean doctrine which is not, in one way or another, rooted in Xenophanes' teaching. Such is, first and foremost, the Parmenidean idea of the intelligible unity of the sensible manifold, which in Xenophanes himself was, as we have suggested, the development of one of the facets of Anaximander's Apeiron. This is the view of unity as one of two aspects\u2014true, the most essential, significant, and sublime\u2014but nevertheless one aspect only of reality, complementary to its other aspect, that of the manifold.\r\n[conclusion p. 163-167]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/H8YttvfJXlsVkrJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":113,"full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":748,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Harvard Studies in Classical Philology","volume":"93","issue":"","pages":"103-167"}},"sort":["Studies in Xenophanes"]}

Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy, 1990
By: Mansfeld, Jaap
Title Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1990
Publication Place Assen – Maastricht
Publisher Van Gorcum
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mansfeld, Jaap
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The collection of nineteen articles in Jaap Mansfeld’s Studies in Early Greek Philosophy span the period from Anaximander to Socrates. Solutions to problems of interpretation are offered through a scrutiny of the sources, and also of the traditions of presentation and reception found in antiquity. Excursions in the history of scholarship help to diagnose discussions of which the primum movens may have been forgotten. General questions are treated, for instance the phenomenon of detheologization in doxographical texts, while problems relating to individual philosophers are also discussed. For example, the history of Anaximander’s cosmos, the status of Parmenides’ human world, and the reliability of what we know about the soul of Anaximenes, and of what Philoponus tells us about the behaviour of Democritus’ atoms. [offical abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"161","_score":null,"_source":{"id":161,"authors_free":[{"id":208,"entry_id":161,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy"},"abstract":"The collection of nineteen articles in Jaap Mansfeld\u2019s Studies in Early Greek Philosophy span the period from Anaximander to Socrates. Solutions to problems of interpretation are offered through a scrutiny of the sources, and also of the traditions of presentation and reception found in antiquity. Excursions in the history of scholarship help to diagnose discussions of which the primum movens may have been forgotten. General questions are treated, for instance the phenomenon of detheologization in doxographical texts, while problems relating to individual philosophers are also discussed. For example, the history of Anaximander\u2019s cosmos, the status of Parmenides\u2019 human world, and the reliability of what we know about the soul of Anaximenes, and of what Philoponus tells us about the behaviour of Democritus\u2019 atoms. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iTj9s6Qm1NZVce9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":161,"pubplace":"Assen \u2013 Maastricht","publisher":"Van Gorcum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy"]}

Sur quelques aspects de la polémique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l’invective à la réaffirmation de la transcendance du ciel, 1987
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Sur quelques aspects de la polémique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l’invective à la réaffirmation de la transcendance du ciel
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 183-221
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
Le Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote, vaste ouvrage exégétique conçu comme un hymne au Démiurge, présente une doctrine fondamentale sur la structure physique de la substance céleste : celle-ci, nous dit Simplicius, est un mélange des cimes (akrotêtes) des quatre éléments, c'est-à-dire un mélange des quatre éléments dans leur état le plus principiel et le plus pur, et dans ce mélange prédomine la cime, purement lumineuse, du feu.

Cette doctrine n'est pas, quant à ses matériaux conceptuels, une création neuve ou originale de Simplicius, car de manière plus détaillée encore, on la rencontre dans le troisième livre du Commentaire de Proclus au Timée. Mais je voudrais montrer, dans le cadre d'une interprétation générale du Commentaire au De caelo, que Simplicius en donne une démonstration et en fait un usage qui lui sont propres, et qui se comprennent en grande partie comme une réaction face aux théories de Jean Philopon. Ce dernier s'était appuyé sur le Timée pour réfuter la doctrine aristotélicienne de la quintessence et de l'éternité du monde, et il niait, bien avant Copernic, toute différence substantielle entre les cieux et le monde sublunaire.

Réfutant les théories du Contra Aristotelem de Philopon, Simplicius réaffirme la divinité, la transcendance et l’éternité du ciel, dans une exégèse qui vise à harmoniser (et non à opposer) le Timée et le De caelo. Cette exégèse est un acte religieux, un exercice spirituel qui convertit l'âme (celle de Simplicius et celle de son lecteur) vers le Démiurge. Cette conversion est une initiation aux grandeurs du monde et du ciel, et la description de la nature physique du ciel est l’un des contenus les plus précieux de la révélation. Celle-ci ne peut être procurée aux lecteurs momentanément abusés par Philopon qu’au terme d’une purification préparatoire, qui est la réfutation des analyses du Contra Aristotelem.

Ainsi, la polémique de Simplicius est orientée vers une visée indissolublement philosophique et religieuse : lire et interpréter correctement le De caelo d’Aristote, ce n’est pas seulement acquérir des connaissances intellectuelles, c’est aussi, et surtout, s’élever par la pensée (mais de manière « vécue ») jusqu’au monde et au Démiurge, c’est leur adresser une prière. Au sacrilège blasphématoire du chrétien Philopon répond la liturgie néoplatonicienne, juste célébration du Dieu. [introduction p. 183-184]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"688","_score":null,"_source":{"id":688,"authors_free":[{"id":1022,"entry_id":688,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1023,"entry_id":688,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Sur quelques aspects de la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l\u2019invective \u00e0 la r\u00e9affirmation de la transcendance du ciel","main_title":{"title":"Sur quelques aspects de la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l\u2019invective \u00e0 la r\u00e9affirmation de la transcendance du ciel"},"abstract":"Le Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote, vaste ouvrage ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique con\u00e7u comme un hymne au D\u00e9miurge, pr\u00e9sente une doctrine fondamentale sur la structure physique de la substance c\u00e9leste : celle-ci, nous dit Simplicius, est un m\u00e9lange des cimes (akrot\u00eates) des quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments, c'est-\u00e0-dire un m\u00e9lange des quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments dans leur \u00e9tat le plus principiel et le plus pur, et dans ce m\u00e9lange pr\u00e9domine la cime, purement lumineuse, du feu.\r\n\r\nCette doctrine n'est pas, quant \u00e0 ses mat\u00e9riaux conceptuels, une cr\u00e9ation neuve ou originale de Simplicius, car de mani\u00e8re plus d\u00e9taill\u00e9e encore, on la rencontre dans le troisi\u00e8me livre du Commentaire de Proclus au Tim\u00e9e. Mais je voudrais montrer, dans le cadre d'une interpr\u00e9tation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du Commentaire au De caelo, que Simplicius en donne une d\u00e9monstration et en fait un usage qui lui sont propres, et qui se comprennent en grande partie comme une r\u00e9action face aux th\u00e9ories de Jean Philopon. Ce dernier s'\u00e9tait appuy\u00e9 sur le Tim\u00e9e pour r\u00e9futer la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la quintessence et de l'\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du monde, et il niait, bien avant Copernic, toute diff\u00e9rence substantielle entre les cieux et le monde sublunaire.\r\n\r\nR\u00e9futant les th\u00e9ories du Contra Aristotelem de Philopon, Simplicius r\u00e9affirme la divinit\u00e9, la transcendance et l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du ciel, dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se qui vise \u00e0 harmoniser (et non \u00e0 opposer) le Tim\u00e9e et le De caelo. Cette ex\u00e9g\u00e8se est un acte religieux, un exercice spirituel qui convertit l'\u00e2me (celle de Simplicius et celle de son lecteur) vers le D\u00e9miurge. Cette conversion est une initiation aux grandeurs du monde et du ciel, et la description de la nature physique du ciel est l\u2019un des contenus les plus pr\u00e9cieux de la r\u00e9v\u00e9lation. Celle-ci ne peut \u00eatre procur\u00e9e aux lecteurs momentan\u00e9ment abus\u00e9s par Philopon qu\u2019au terme d\u2019une purification pr\u00e9paratoire, qui est la r\u00e9futation des analyses du Contra Aristotelem.\r\n\r\nAinsi, la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius est orient\u00e9e vers une vis\u00e9e indissolublement philosophique et religieuse : lire et interpr\u00e9ter correctement le De caelo d\u2019Aristote, ce n\u2019est pas seulement acqu\u00e9rir des connaissances intellectuelles, c\u2019est aussi, et surtout, s\u2019\u00e9lever par la pens\u00e9e (mais de mani\u00e8re \u00ab v\u00e9cue \u00bb) jusqu\u2019au monde et au D\u00e9miurge, c\u2019est leur adresser une pri\u00e8re. Au sacril\u00e8ge blasph\u00e9matoire du chr\u00e9tien Philopon r\u00e9pond la liturgie n\u00e9oplatonicienne, juste c\u00e9l\u00e9bration du Dieu. [introduction p. 183-184]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wBslsmZjGCgfHjc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":688,"section_of":171,"pages":"183-221","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Sur quelques aspects de la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l\u2019invective \u00e0 la r\u00e9affirmation de la transcendance du ciel"]}

Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander’s Commentary on Metaph. E-N, 1987
By: Tarán, Leonardo, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander’s Commentary on Metaph. E-N
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben
Pages 215-232
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarán, Leonardo
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
The main conclusions of this study are two: (a) Neither Ps.-Alexander nor Syrianus had access to Alexander’s lost commentary on Metaphysics E-N. (b) For his commentary on books M-N, Syrianus made use of Ps.-Alexander’s commentary, which he mistook for the work of Alexander himself. [conclusion p. 231]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"797","_score":null,"_source":{"id":797,"authors_free":[{"id":1176,"entry_id":797,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1177,"entry_id":797,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander\u2019s Commentary on Metaph. E-N","main_title":{"title":"Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander\u2019s Commentary on Metaph. E-N"},"abstract":"The main conclusions of this study are two: (a) Neither Ps.-Alexander nor Syrianus had access to Alexander\u2019s lost commentary on Metaphysics E-N. (b) For his commentary on books M-N, Syrianus made use of Ps.-Alexander\u2019s commentary, which he mistook for the work of Alexander himself. [conclusion p. 231]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TQhCHWKXBejvsjI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":797,"section_of":189,"pages":"215-232","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander\u2019s Commentary on Metaph. E-N"]}

The Changing Self: A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus, 1978
By: Steel, Carlos
Title The Changing Self: A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1978
Publication Place Brüssel
Publisher Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten
Categories no categories
Author(s) Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The later Neoplatonist writers are not easy to read or sympathize with for several reasons. To begin with, it is necessary to reconstruct their views not with the help of their own writings, but with extracts and summaries in later writers. This is particularly true of Iamblichus. Only fragments of his treatise De Anima may be found in Stobaeus (Ecl. 1, 362, 23–367, 9), and to this somewhat exiguous number may be added what is reported in various places by Proclus, Damascius, and Priscianus, fifth- and sixth-century writers living two centuries after the death of Iamblichus in 326. This makes any attempt at reconstruction particularly uncertain.

Iamblichus' views, insofar as we can reconstruct them, are primarily interesting because they represent the first and in many ways most serious challenge to the doctrines of Plotinus. And the challenge itself may be said to have split the later Neoplatonists, with Damascius and Priscianus following Iamblichus and Proclus reverting to the views of Plotinus.

The real question at issue, and one dealt with with admirable fairness and clarity by Steel, is the nature of the soul and, more particularly, "Does it fall or not?" Plotinus maintained on many occasions that it remained, at least in its upper and true self, unfallen. This is clear, for example, at Enn. IV.1.12. Iamblichus' critique of this view is instructive and sympathetic. The view of Plotinus fails to explain far too many factors in our moral and empirical lives—the fact of sin, our awareness of unhappiness, and the apparent betrayal of the vision of the soul offered by Plato in the Phaedrus 248a ff.

Not that Plotinus was unaware of these drawbacks to his theory. He had anticipated and dealt with some already at Enn. I.1 and III.6. Iamblichus also objected to the Plotinian doctrine that all souls were homogeneous (cf. Enn. IV.7.10.19). To obviate these difficulties, Iamblichus developed a theory about the substantial change of the soul (cf. p. 53 ff.). The evidence for this view comes largely from Priscianus, so it is perhaps unwise to be too uncritical about accepting it as Iamblichus' own, especially when considering the reverence in which he was held by many later writers, who, beginning at least as early as Julian, called him "the divine."

The arguments produced in favor of such a view of the mutable substance of the soul all seem to argue from perceived activities to the unperceived cause—a methodological principle that derives from Aristotle and seems to run counter to the method employed by Plotinus. The system of Plotinus, like that of the great systematizer Proclus, is deductive rather than inductive.

The central vision around which the Iamblichean picture revolves is of a soul that remains in itself and simultaneously proceeds from itself—a view that is often repeated in Priscianus. Whereas in Plotinus the upper, true soul never sallies forth and only the image of the soul does, here it is the whole soul. This reduced cosmic status of the soul may be the reason why Iamblichus was willing to allow people to approach the divine through theurgy and not simply through the activity of the soul.

Two points may be mentioned. One is the relation of Iamblichus to Proclus. It has often been assumed that the former had a great influence on the latter, and this is the view put forward by Professor Dodds in his edition of the Elements of Proclus (cf. Introd., xvi ff.). Just how much influence was there?

Again, on p. 157, it is stated that much later pagan psychology was occasioned by the desire to refute either the views or objections of Christians, or both. But there is a considerable question as to the knowledge of and interest in what Christians believed and wrote on the part of educated pagans. It really is an open question whether there is any reference at all to anything Christian in Iamblichus or Plotinus. It would be most interesting if any serious evidence could be found in favor of such a hypothesis. [review by Anthony Meredith p. 290-291 ]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1445","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1445,"authors_free":[{"id":2314,"entry_id":1445,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Changing Self: A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus","main_title":{"title":"The Changing Self: A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus"},"abstract":"The later Neoplatonist writers are not easy to read or sympathize with for several reasons. To begin with, it is necessary to reconstruct their views not with the help of their own writings, but with extracts and summaries in later writers. This is particularly true of Iamblichus. Only fragments of his treatise De Anima may be found in Stobaeus (Ecl. 1, 362, 23\u2013367, 9), and to this somewhat exiguous number may be added what is reported in various places by Proclus, Damascius, and Priscianus, fifth- and sixth-century writers living two centuries after the death of Iamblichus in 326. This makes any attempt at reconstruction particularly uncertain.\r\n\r\nIamblichus' views, insofar as we can reconstruct them, are primarily interesting because they represent the first and in many ways most serious challenge to the doctrines of Plotinus. And the challenge itself may be said to have split the later Neoplatonists, with Damascius and Priscianus following Iamblichus and Proclus reverting to the views of Plotinus.\r\n\r\nThe real question at issue, and one dealt with with admirable fairness and clarity by Steel, is the nature of the soul and, more particularly, \"Does it fall or not?\" Plotinus maintained on many occasions that it remained, at least in its upper and true self, unfallen. This is clear, for example, at Enn. IV.1.12. Iamblichus' critique of this view is instructive and sympathetic. The view of Plotinus fails to explain far too many factors in our moral and empirical lives\u2014the fact of sin, our awareness of unhappiness, and the apparent betrayal of the vision of the soul offered by Plato in the Phaedrus 248a ff.\r\n\r\nNot that Plotinus was unaware of these drawbacks to his theory. He had anticipated and dealt with some already at Enn. I.1 and III.6. Iamblichus also objected to the Plotinian doctrine that all souls were homogeneous (cf. Enn. IV.7.10.19). To obviate these difficulties, Iamblichus developed a theory about the substantial change of the soul (cf. p. 53 ff.). The evidence for this view comes largely from Priscianus, so it is perhaps unwise to be too uncritical about accepting it as Iamblichus' own, especially when considering the reverence in which he was held by many later writers, who, beginning at least as early as Julian, called him \"the divine.\"\r\n\r\nThe arguments produced in favor of such a view of the mutable substance of the soul all seem to argue from perceived activities to the unperceived cause\u2014a methodological principle that derives from Aristotle and seems to run counter to the method employed by Plotinus. The system of Plotinus, like that of the great systematizer Proclus, is deductive rather than inductive.\r\n\r\nThe central vision around which the Iamblichean picture revolves is of a soul that remains in itself and simultaneously proceeds from itself\u2014a view that is often repeated in Priscianus. Whereas in Plotinus the upper, true soul never sallies forth and only the image of the soul does, here it is the whole soul. This reduced cosmic status of the soul may be the reason why Iamblichus was willing to allow people to approach the divine through theurgy and not simply through the activity of the soul.\r\n\r\nTwo points may be mentioned. One is the relation of Iamblichus to Proclus. It has often been assumed that the former had a great influence on the latter, and this is the view put forward by Professor Dodds in his edition of the Elements of Proclus (cf. Introd., xvi ff.). Just how much influence was there?\r\n\r\nAgain, on p. 157, it is stated that much later pagan psychology was occasioned by the desire to refute either the views or objections of Christians, or both. But there is a considerable question as to the knowledge of and interest in what Christians believed and wrote on the part of educated pagans. It really is an open question whether there is any reference at all to anything Christian in Iamblichus or Plotinus. It would be most interesting if any serious evidence could be found in favor of such a hypothesis. [review by Anthony Meredith p. 290-291 ]","btype":1,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tntYMFyZHiMovai","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1445,"pubplace":"Br\u00fcssel","publisher":"Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["The Changing Self: A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus"]}

The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge, 1973
By: Kustas, George L.
Title The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1973
Published in Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric
Pages 101-126
Categories no categories
Author(s) Kustas, George L.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Among the works edited in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca are a number of analyses of the Categories, Aristotle’s basic treatise on formal logic, as well as commentaries on Porphyry’s introduction to philosophy, the Isagoge, which is concerned with basic philosophical principles. Those which concern us belong to the fifth/sixth century and are the product of the Alexandrian school of Neoplatonism. The authors are Ammonius, son of Hermeias; his students, John Philoponus and Olympiodorus; and Olympiodorus’ students, Elias and David. To this list we may add Simplicius, who attended Ammonius’ lectures before emigrating to Athens.

We are dealing with a common tradition of exegesis. The standard arrangement is several pages of prolegomena, in which the author lays out his purpose and defines his terms, followed by extensive scholia on individual passages. The commentators consistently make the claim that they are clearing up obscurities in the text. Hence the term dodelex appears often in their pages. Our interest, however, lies not here but in their analysis of what they regard as Aristotle’s deliberate use of obscurity as a quality of style designed with a specific end in view. We have therefore to examine in some detail what they say. [introduction p. 101]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1514","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1514,"authors_free":[{"id":2630,"entry_id":1514,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":562,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kustas, George L. ","free_first_name":"George L.","free_last_name":"Kustas","norm_person":{"id":562,"first_name":"George L. ","last_name":"Kustas","full_name":"Kustas, George L. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge","main_title":{"title":"The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge"},"abstract":"Among the works edited in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca are a number of analyses of the Categories, Aristotle\u2019s basic treatise on formal logic, as well as commentaries on Porphyry\u2019s introduction to philosophy, the Isagoge, which is concerned with basic philosophical principles. Those which concern us belong to the fifth\/sixth century and are the product of the Alexandrian school of Neoplatonism. The authors are Ammonius, son of Hermeias; his students, John Philoponus and Olympiodorus; and Olympiodorus\u2019 students, Elias and David. To this list we may add Simplicius, who attended Ammonius\u2019 lectures before emigrating to Athens.\r\n\r\nWe are dealing with a common tradition of exegesis. The standard arrangement is several pages of prolegomena, in which the author lays out his purpose and defines his terms, followed by extensive scholia on individual passages. The commentators consistently make the claim that they are clearing up obscurities in the text. Hence the term dodelex appears often in their pages. Our interest, however, lies not here but in their analysis of what they regard as Aristotle\u2019s deliberate use of obscurity as a quality of style designed with a specific end in view. We have therefore to examine in some detail what they say. [introduction p. 101]","btype":2,"date":"1973","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/czKsHr75gQ60Xo4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":562,"full_name":"Kustas, George L. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1514,"section_of":1515,"pages":"101-126","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1515,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kustas_1973","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1973","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rxJfkOyETAdcjhw","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1515,"pubplace":"Thessalonike ","publisher":"Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikon Meleton","series":"Analekta Vlatado\u0304n","volume":"17","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1514,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"101-126"}},"sort":["The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge"]}

The Cosmology of Parmenides, 1986
By: Finkelberg, Aryeh
Title The Cosmology of Parmenides
Type Article
Language English
Date 1986
Journal The American Journal of Philology
Volume 107
Issue 3
Pages 303-317
Categories no categories
Author(s) Finkelberg, Aryeh
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Our  main source  of information  about  the  cosmological  compo­nent  of  Parmenides’  doctrine  of Opinion —apart  from  the  first  three and a half abstruse lines of fr.  12 — is Aetius’ account.  This,  however,  is generally regarded as confused,  garbled and incompatible with fr.  12. The reconstruction of Parmenides’ cosmology is thus considered a hope­less task,  for  “it must inevitably be based on many conjectures.” I,  however, cannot accept this conclusion, for,  as I argue below,  it is possible to provide a reasonably intelligible account of Aetius’ report (except  for the corrupt sentence  about  the goddess) which is  also com­patible with fr.  12, provided, of course, that we are not bent upon prov­ing our sources incompatible,  but rather seek to reconcile them. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"548","_score":null,"_source":{"id":548,"authors_free":[{"id":772,"entry_id":548,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":113,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","free_first_name":"Aryeh","free_last_name":"Finkelberg","norm_person":{"id":113,"first_name":"Aryeh","last_name":"Finkelberg","full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1124815007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Cosmology of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"The Cosmology of Parmenides"},"abstract":"Our main source of information about the cosmological compo\u00adnent of Parmenides\u2019 doctrine of Opinion \u2014apart from the first three and a half abstruse lines of fr. 12 \u2014 is Aetius\u2019 account. This, however, is generally regarded as confused, garbled and incompatible with fr. 12. The reconstruction of Parmenides\u2019 cosmology is thus considered a hope\u00adless task, for \u201cit must inevitably be based on many conjectures.\u201d I, however, cannot accept this conclusion, for, as I argue below, it is possible to provide a reasonably intelligible account of Aetius\u2019 report (except for the corrupt sentence about the goddess) which is also com\u00adpatible with fr. 12, provided, of course, that we are not bent upon prov\u00ading our sources incompatible, but rather seek to reconcile them. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3OYYrw5qTwsrSkx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":113,"full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":548,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The American Journal of Philology","volume":"107","issue":"3","pages":"303-317"}},"sort":["The Cosmology of Parmenides"]}

The End of Aristotle's on Prayer, 1985
By: Rist, John M.
Title The End of Aristotle's on Prayer
Type Article
Language English
Date 1985
Journal The American Journal of Philology
Volume 106
Issue 1
Pages 110-113
Categories no categories
Author(s) Rist, John M.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Jean Pépin recently devoted a lengthy study to Aristotle's On Prayer. There is good reason to think that the work never existed. On Prayer is listed in Diogenes Laertius' catalogue of Aristotle's writings (5.22) and in the Vita Hesychii. The only other evidence for its existence is a passage of Simplicius that tells us that at the end of On Prayer, Aristotle says clearly that God is either mind or somehow beyond mind (ἢ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ νοῦ).

The claim that God is beyond mind is unique in an unemended Aristotelian text, but the notion would be acceptable to Simplicius both because, as a Neoplatonist, he would believe it to be true, and because as a Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle, he would be happy to find evidence of the basic philosophical harmony of Aristotle and Plato. Our problem, therefore, is to see why Simplicius thought that Aristotle held this view. The immediate answer is that he thought he had found it in a text of Aristotle's called On Prayer (or perhaps more likely in an anthology of Aristotelian material claiming that this was Aristotle's view in such a work).

But if there was no such work On Prayer, how could Simplicius (or his source) think there was, and what is the actual source of the apparent fragment that claims that for Aristotle, God might be "beyond mind"? It is possible to understand how Simplicius was misled.

There is a Latin work in two chapters called De Bona Fortuna. It is composed of Magna Moralia 2.8 and Eudemian Ethics 8.2. Of the 56 surviving manuscripts of De Bona Fortuna, the earliest datable version is Vat. Lat. 2083, of the year 1284. The producer of this text is unknown. De Bona Fortuna is not an excerpt from existing Latin translations of Magna Moralia and Eudemian Ethics, because although Bartholomew of Messina translated the Magna Moralia between 1258 and 1266, and although a Greek manuscript of the Eudemian Ethics may have been known in Messina before 1250, there are no medieval Latin translations of the Eudemian Ethics as a whole; indeed, the only other section of the text translated is E.E. 8.3.

The original sources of De Bona Fortuna were known to at least some of those who copied it in Latin, but the work itself is a direct translation from Greek. So, unless the translator also both excerpted and combined the two parts of the De Bona Fortuna himself, and showed no concern for the fact that the rest of the Eudemian Ethics was still untranslated, and perhaps even still unknown (which is highly unlikely), he must have used a Greek original of De Bona Fortuna in the form of a separate treatise composed of M.M. 2.8 and E.E. 8.2.

The title of the treatise, presumably, was the Greek equivalent of De Bona Fortuna, that is, Περὶ Εὐτυχίας. We have no means of telling when it was assembled, but there is no reason why it should not be ancient and indeed have been available to Simplicius or (if Simplicius is quoting an anthology of some sort) to his source.

E.E. 8.2 (1248A28) unemended, reads as follows: Τί οὖν ἂν κρεῖττον καὶ ἐπισημότερον εἴποι τις ἢ θεὸς. Spengel added the words καὶ νοῦ after εἴποι, following the reading et intellectu found in De Bona Fortuna. Thus, the Greek original of De Bona Fortuna read: Τί οὖν ἂν κρεῖττον καὶ ἐπισημότερον εἴποι καὶ νοῦ πάλιν θεὸς. Thus, in Περὶ Εὐτυχίας, God is greater than mind.

Admittedly, Περὶ Εὐτυχίας did not say that God is "beyond mind" (ἐπέκεινα τοῦ νοῦ), only that he is greater than mind. But in Platonic or Neopythagorean writings of late antiquity, these phrases are virtually interchangeable. The most striking evidence is from Plotinus, who uses ἐπέκεινα τοῦ νοῦ dozens of times and also gives the best examples of the One being "greater (κρείττων)" than mind (5.3.14.16-18, 5.3.16.38, 5.3.17.1-3).

Simplicius thought he knew about an Aristotelian text On Prayer (Περὶ Εὐχῆς). Let us suppose that he had direct or indirect access to a work originally called On Good Fortune (Περὶ Εὐτυχίας). The corruption of Εὐτυχίας to Εὐχῆς is easy. In this text, Simplicius found the remark that God is "greater than mind." There is no reason to assume that Simplicius is quoting On Good Fortune verbatim. For Simplicius, as a Neoplatonist, to say that God is "greater than mind" is the same as to say that he is "beyond (ἐπέκεινα) mind."

The use of ἐπέκεινα in this way derives, of course, from Neoplatonic, Middle Platonic, and Neopythagorean interpretations of Plato's Republic 509B.

Let us therefore posit the following sequence of events. A Greek text, including (but not necessarily restricted to) M.M. 2.8 and E.E. 8.2, is compiled and originally entitled Περὶ Εὐτυχίας. It comes to contain, at some point, an un-Aristotelian phrase (absent from the original text of the E.E. and based on a misinterpretation of that text) saying that God is "greater than mind." The title of the work is at some stage corrupted: Περὶ Εὐτυχίας becomes Περὶ Εὐχῆς.

Simplicius either reads it under this title or, more likely, finds it so cited by an excerpter or commentator of Platonizing tendencies. Either Simplicius or the excerpter paraphrases κρείττον τοῦ νοῦ as ἐπέκεινα τοῦ νοῦ. Hence, our alleged fragment of Aristotle's work On Prayer, found in Simplicius, is really a corrupted fragment of Περὶ Εὐτυχίας, a work whose origin is lost but which reaches Simplicius, or becomes known to him, through the medium of a Platonizing tradition.

The date of the original compilation Περὶ Εὐτυχίας remains unknown, but it must have been early enough for its title, in a mistaken form, to have found its way onto the lists of Aristotle's writings. The corruption of the title was probably achieved by a librarian's error long before the crucial phrase καὶ νοῦ (absent, as we have seen, from the Eudemian Ethics) was imported into the text itself. This can hardly have occurred before the revival of Neopythagoreanism, that is, before the second century B.C. It is not impossible that it was post-Plotinian. [the entire text]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"858","_score":null,"_source":{"id":858,"authors_free":[{"id":1262,"entry_id":858,"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 End of Aristotle's on Prayer","main_title":{"title":"The End of Aristotle's on Prayer"},"abstract":"Jean P\u00e9pin recently devoted a lengthy study to Aristotle's On Prayer. There is good reason to think that the work never existed. On Prayer is listed in Diogenes Laertius' catalogue of Aristotle's writings (5.22) and in the Vita Hesychii. The only other evidence for its existence is a passage of Simplicius that tells us that at the end of On Prayer, Aristotle says clearly that God is either mind or somehow beyond mind (\u1f22 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6).\r\n\r\nThe claim that God is beyond mind is unique in an unemended Aristotelian text, but the notion would be acceptable to Simplicius both because, as a Neoplatonist, he would believe it to be true, and because as a Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle, he would be happy to find evidence of the basic philosophical harmony of Aristotle and Plato. Our problem, therefore, is to see why Simplicius thought that Aristotle held this view. The immediate answer is that he thought he had found it in a text of Aristotle's called On Prayer (or perhaps more likely in an anthology of Aristotelian material claiming that this was Aristotle's view in such a work).\r\n\r\nBut if there was no such work On Prayer, how could Simplicius (or his source) think there was, and what is the actual source of the apparent fragment that claims that for Aristotle, God might be \"beyond mind\"? It is possible to understand how Simplicius was misled.\r\n\r\nThere is a Latin work in two chapters called De Bona Fortuna. It is composed of Magna Moralia 2.8 and Eudemian Ethics 8.2. Of the 56 surviving manuscripts of De Bona Fortuna, the earliest datable version is Vat. Lat. 2083, of the year 1284. The producer of this text is unknown. De Bona Fortuna is not an excerpt from existing Latin translations of Magna Moralia and Eudemian Ethics, because although Bartholomew of Messina translated the Magna Moralia between 1258 and 1266, and although a Greek manuscript of the Eudemian Ethics may have been known in Messina before 1250, there are no medieval Latin translations of the Eudemian Ethics as a whole; indeed, the only other section of the text translated is E.E. 8.3.\r\n\r\nThe original sources of De Bona Fortuna were known to at least some of those who copied it in Latin, but the work itself is a direct translation from Greek. So, unless the translator also both excerpted and combined the two parts of the De Bona Fortuna himself, and showed no concern for the fact that the rest of the Eudemian Ethics was still untranslated, and perhaps even still unknown (which is highly unlikely), he must have used a Greek original of De Bona Fortuna in the form of a separate treatise composed of M.M. 2.8 and E.E. 8.2.\r\n\r\nThe title of the treatise, presumably, was the Greek equivalent of De Bona Fortuna, that is, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. We have no means of telling when it was assembled, but there is no reason why it should not be ancient and indeed have been available to Simplicius or (if Simplicius is quoting an anthology of some sort) to his source.\r\n\r\nE.E. 8.2 (1248A28) unemended, reads as follows: \u03a4\u03af \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2. Spengel added the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 after \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, following the reading et intellectu found in De Bona Fortuna. Thus, the Greek original of De Bona Fortuna read: \u03a4\u03af \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2. Thus, in \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, God is greater than mind.\r\n\r\nAdmittedly, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 did not say that God is \"beyond mind\" (\u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6), only that he is greater than mind. But in Platonic or Neopythagorean writings of late antiquity, these phrases are virtually interchangeable. The most striking evidence is from Plotinus, who uses \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 dozens of times and also gives the best examples of the One being \"greater (\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd)\" than mind (5.3.14.16-18, 5.3.16.38, 5.3.17.1-3).\r\n\r\nSimplicius thought he knew about an Aristotelian text On Prayer (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2). Let us suppose that he had direct or indirect access to a work originally called On Good Fortune (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2). The corruption of \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 to \u0395\u1f50\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 is easy. In this text, Simplicius found the remark that God is \"greater than mind.\" There is no reason to assume that Simplicius is quoting On Good Fortune verbatim. For Simplicius, as a Neoplatonist, to say that God is \"greater than mind\" is the same as to say that he is \"beyond (\u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1) mind.\"\r\n\r\nThe use of \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 in this way derives, of course, from Neoplatonic, Middle Platonic, and Neopythagorean interpretations of Plato's Republic 509B.\r\n\r\nLet us therefore posit the following sequence of events. A Greek text, including (but not necessarily restricted to) M.M. 2.8 and E.E. 8.2, is compiled and originally entitled \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. It comes to contain, at some point, an un-Aristotelian phrase (absent from the original text of the E.E. and based on a misinterpretation of that text) saying that God is \"greater than mind.\" The title of the work is at some stage corrupted: \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 becomes \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2.\r\n\r\nSimplicius either reads it under this title or, more likely, finds it so cited by an excerpter or commentator of Platonizing tendencies. Either Simplicius or the excerpter paraphrases \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 as \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6. Hence, our alleged fragment of Aristotle's work On Prayer, found in Simplicius, is really a corrupted fragment of \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, a work whose origin is lost but which reaches Simplicius, or becomes known to him, through the medium of a Platonizing tradition.\r\n\r\nThe date of the original compilation \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 remains unknown, but it must have been early enough for its title, in a mistaken form, to have found its way onto the lists of Aristotle's writings. The corruption of the title was probably achieved by a librarian's error long before the crucial phrase \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 (absent, as we have seen, from the Eudemian Ethics) was imported into the text itself. This can hardly have occurred before the revival of Neopythagoreanism, that is, before the second century B.C. It is not impossible that it was post-Plotinian. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7iwkew2wm2p3qeo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":303,"full_name":"Rist, John M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":858,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The American Journal of Philology","volume":"106","issue":"1","pages":"110-113"}},"sort":["The End of Aristotle's on Prayer"]}

The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius, 1979
By: Bormann, Karl
Title The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius
Type Article
Language English
Date 1979
Journal The Monist
Volume 62
Issue 1
Pages 30–42
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bormann, Karl
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The doctrines of Parmenides of the one being and of the world of seeming were—as is well known—interpreted in different ways in the course of the history of philosophy, and even in twentieth-century historic-philosophical research, there is no agreement on the meaning of the two parts of the poem.Regarding the one being, there are four attempts of explanation to be distinguished: (1) The being is material; (2) the being is immaterial; (3) it is the esse copulae or must be seen as a modal category; (4) it is the entity of being ("Sein des Seienden"). This latter interpretation, if we can call it an interpretation, is chiefly influenced by Heidegger. The Doxa-part, however, is seen as (1) a more or less critical demography; (2) a second-best, hypothetic explanation of phenomena which is not truth but verisimilitude; (3) a systematic unit together with the First part, the aletheia. We do not have to discuss the differences between the outlined explanations separately; in the following, we shall show that some modern interpretations were already expressed in a similar way in antiquity. With this, we shall concentrate especially on the Neoplatonist Simplicius who in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics expounds the first part of the Parmenidean poem completely and, in addition, the most important doctrines of the second part. [Introduction, p. 30]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1078","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1078,"authors_free":[{"id":1634,"entry_id":1078,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":11,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bormann, Karl ","free_first_name":"Karl","free_last_name":"Bormann","norm_person":{"id":11,"first_name":"Karl ","last_name":"Bormann","full_name":"Bormann, Karl ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119138816","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius"},"abstract":"The doctrines of Parmenides of the one being and of the world of seeming were\u2014as is well known\u2014interpreted in different ways in the course of the history of philosophy, and even in twentieth-century historic-philosophical research, there is no agreement on the meaning of the two parts of the poem.Regarding the one being, there are four attempts of explanation to be distinguished: (1) The being is material; (2) the being is immaterial; (3) it is the esse copulae or must be seen as a modal category; (4) it is the entity of being (\"Sein des Seienden\"). This latter interpretation, if we can call it an interpretation, is chiefly influenced by Heidegger. The Doxa-part, however, is seen as (1) a more or less critical demography; (2) a second-best, hypothetic explanation of phenomena which is not truth but verisimilitude; (3) a systematic unit together with the First part, the aletheia. We do not have to discuss the differences between the outlined explanations separately; in the following, we shall show that some modern interpretations were already expressed in a similar way in antiquity. With this, we shall concentrate especially on the Neoplatonist Simplicius who in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics expounds the first part of the Parmenidean poem completely and, in addition, the most important doctrines of the second part. [Introduction, p. 30]","btype":3,"date":"1979","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KVjmlyMlPhuG3iK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":11,"full_name":"Bormann, Karl ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1078,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Monist","volume":"62","issue":"1","pages":"30\u201342"}},"sort":["The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius"]}

The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1, 1972
By: Abraham, William E.
Title The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1
Type Article
Language English
Date 1972
Journal Phronesis
Volume 17
Issue 1
Pages 40-52
Categories no categories
Author(s) Abraham, William E.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Simplicius has  preserved (Phys.  140, 34)  a  Zenonian argument purporting to show that if an object of positive magnitude has parts from 
which  it  derives its  size,  then  any  such  object  must  be  at  once  of 
infinite  magnitude and  zero magnitude. This surprising consequence 
is  based upon a construction which Zeno makes, but  his argument is 
widely thought to  be grossly fallacious. Most often he is  supposed to 
have misunderstood the arithmetic of his own construction. Evidently, 
any  such  charge must  be  premised on  some  view  of  the  particular 
nature of the sequence to which Zeno's construction gives rise. I  seek 
to  develop a  view  that  Zeno's argument is  in  fact  free from fallacy, 
and offer reason to fear that his real argument has usually been missed. [p. 40]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"780","_score":null,"_source":{"id":780,"authors_free":[{"id":1145,"entry_id":780,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":3,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abraham, William E.","free_first_name":"William E.","free_last_name":"Abraham","norm_person":{"id":3,"first_name":"William E.","last_name":"Abraham","full_name":"Abraham, William E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120967007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1","main_title":{"title":"The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1"},"abstract":"Simplicius has preserved (Phys. 140, 34) a Zenonian argument purporting to show that if an object of positive magnitude has parts from \r\nwhich it derives its size, then any such object must be at once of \r\ninfinite magnitude and zero magnitude. This surprising consequence \r\nis based upon a construction which Zeno makes, but his argument is \r\nwidely thought to be grossly fallacious. Most often he is supposed to \r\nhave misunderstood the arithmetic of his own construction. Evidently, \r\nany such charge must be premised on some view of the particular \r\nnature of the sequence to which Zeno's construction gives rise. I seek \r\nto develop a view that Zeno's argument is in fact free from fallacy, \r\nand offer reason to fear that his real argument has usually been missed. [p. 40]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QHBs8Wv701RyPQh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":3,"full_name":"Abraham, William E.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":780,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"17","issue":"1","pages":"40-52"}},"sort":["The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1"]}

The Physical World of Late Antiquity, 1987
By: Sambursky, Samuel
Title The Physical World of Late Antiquity
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1987
Publication Place Princeton
Publisher Princeton University Press
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sambursky, Samuel
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Sambursky describes the development of scientific conceptions and theories in the centuries following Aristotle until the close of antiquity in the sixth century A. D. Originally published in 1987. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. [a.a.]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"7","_score":null,"_source":{"id":7,"authors_free":[{"id":7,"entry_id":7,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":308,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sambursky, Samuel","free_first_name":"Samuel","free_last_name":"Sambursky","norm_person":{"id":308,"first_name":"\u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","last_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee","full_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120109794","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Physical World of Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"The Physical World of Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"Sambursky describes the development of scientific conceptions and theories in the centuries following Aristotle until the close of antiquity in the sixth century A. D. Originally published in 1987. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. [a.a.]","btype":1,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ucITChRtwjW8n0e","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":308,"full_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":7,"pubplace":"Princeton","publisher":"Princeton University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["The Physical World of Late Antiquity"]}

The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern, 1985
By: Sorabji, Richard
Title The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern
Type Article
Language English
Date 1985
Journal Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series
Volume 86
Pages 1-22
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
I want to draw attention to two recurrent themes in the analysis of matter or body. The first theme is the idea that body is extension endowed with properties. To explain this, I shall go back as far as a famous text in Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book 7, Chapter 3.

Aristotle is here discussing matter in a rather special sense. He does not mean by 'matter' what we might mean, namely, body. He means rather the subject of the properties in a body. The table in front of me may be made of wood. From one point of view, the wood might be thought of as a subject which carries the properties of the table—its rectilinearity, its hardness, its brownness.

But according to one persuasive interpretation, Aristotle is looking for the most fundamental subject of properties in a body. He calls it the first subject (hupokeimenon proton, 1029a1-2). The wood of the table is made up of the four elements—earth, air, fire, and water—and these might be thought of as a more fundamental subject carrying the properties of the wood.

But the most fundamental subject would be one which carried the properties of the four elements: hot, cold, fluid, and dry. This first subject is referred to by commentators as first or prime matter. [introduction p. 1]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"490","_score":null,"_source":{"id":490,"authors_free":[{"id":671,"entry_id":490,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern","main_title":{"title":"The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern"},"abstract":"I want to draw attention to two recurrent themes in the analysis of matter or body. The first theme is the idea that body is extension endowed with properties. To explain this, I shall go back as far as a famous text in Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book 7, Chapter 3.\r\n\r\nAristotle is here discussing matter in a rather special sense. He does not mean by 'matter' what we might mean, namely, body. He means rather the subject of the properties in a body. The table in front of me may be made of wood. From one point of view, the wood might be thought of as a subject which carries the properties of the table\u2014its rectilinearity, its hardness, its brownness.\r\n\r\nBut according to one persuasive interpretation, Aristotle is looking for the most fundamental subject of properties in a body. He calls it the first subject (hupokeimenon proton, 1029a1-2). The wood of the table is made up of the four elements\u2014earth, air, fire, and water\u2014and these might be thought of as a more fundamental subject carrying the properties of the wood.\r\n\r\nBut the most fundamental subject would be one which carried the properties of the four elements: hot, cold, fluid, and dry. This first subject is referred to by commentators as first or prime matter. [introduction p. 1]","btype":3,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Dk2wV9MF91LwVgZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":490,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series","volume":"86","issue":"","pages":"1-22"}},"sort":["The Presidential Address: Analyses of Matter, Ancient and Modern"]}

The Text of Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, 1987
By: Tarán, Leonardo, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title The Text of Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 246-266
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarán, Leonardo
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
My main purpose here is to offer reasons why a new and truly critical edition of Simplicius' commentary is necessary. To do so, in what follows, I shall have to point out some of the shortcomings to be found in Diels' edition of this work. [p. 246]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"726","_score":null,"_source":{"id":726,"authors_free":[{"id":1085,"entry_id":726,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1086,"entry_id":726,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Text of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"The Text of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"My main purpose here is to offer reasons why a new and truly critical edition of Simplicius' commentary is necessary. To do so, in what follows, I shall have to point out some of the shortcomings to be found in Diels' edition of this work. [p. 246]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wSJkdX2PYdHh3n2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":726,"section_of":171,"pages":"246-266","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Text of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"]}

The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined, 1971
By: Solmsen, Friedrich
Title The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined
Type Article
Language English
Date 1971
Journal Phronesis
Volume 16
Issue 2
Pages 116-141
Categories no categories
Author(s) Solmsen, Friedrich
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This paper makes no attempt to compete with the brilliant studies through which, in the last thirty years, several scholars have advanced our understanding of the evidence for Zeno of Elea, and in particular of the verbatim preserved fragments. In fact, my intention is not to replace theories with other theories but to create doubt about matters that, for some time, have been taken for granted, and to change confident assumptions into hypotheses that would tolerate others alongside them.
Accounts of Zeno's philosophy generally take as their starting point some well-known statements at the beginning of Plato's Parmenides. Given the paucity of reports bearing on his work as a whole, the information here vouchsafed about its content and purpose must seem priceless. It also seems authoritative, the idea of examining it critically almost sacrilegious. Zeno, we read here, wrote against those who ridiculed the thesis of his master Parmenides that "all is one." The opponents tried to discredit this thesis by pointing out contradictions and "ridiculous" consequences resulting from the Parmenidean "One." In return, Zeno took the adversaries' position that "there are many" as the basis for his reasoning, deducing from it, in each of his arguments, contradictions and other results even more "ridiculous" than what the opponents had found in Parmenides' theory.
It is easy to see why this testimony is so irresistible. Plato himself distinguishes between what is certain and what allows doubt and more than one explanation. Doubt is possible about certain accidental aspects (tôn symbebêkotôn ti, Zeno says, 128c5 ff.), i.e., whether the ultimate convergence of the two treatises was meant to be obvious or to be concealed from the reader, and also whether Zeno was anxious to build up a philosophical stature for himself or merely to help Parmenides against the detractors. Yet, precisely because doubt is allowed on such items of secondary importance, the far more important statements concerning the subject matter, the method, and the objectives of Zeno's treatise seem immune to attack.
Scholars writing on Zeno have usually accepted Plato's testimony as a matter of course or with the most perfunctory justification. A few have given reasons why the testimony deserves confidence, and no reason could be more attractive than the sensitive comments of Hermann Fränkel about Plato as being, by his own individuality and temperament, exceptionally qualified to appreciate the peculiar, rather wanton humor that Fränkel has found lurking in Zeno's sallies. I should be loath to disagree with this argument, even if it did not form part of what Gregory Vlastos has justly called "easily the most important philological monograph published on the subject in several decades." Still, I am not the first to question the element of wantonness and trickery in Zeno's proofs, and even if it were granted, one might wonder whether Plato's own humor is not normally more gentle and urbane (asteion)—the exuberance of the "youthful" Protagoras being an exception—and whether even a congenial sense of humor would guarantee the correct understanding of a philosophical endeavor.
But it is perhaps more profitable to develop Fränkel's doubts "as to how much Plato, or his readers for that matter, would be interested in problems of mere historicity." For these doubts apply even farther than Fränkel may be inclined to think. Would Plato really wish to make sure that his readers had a correct knowledge of what Zeno's treatise intended and achieved? Had he carefully and with something approaching philological accuracy worked his way through all the ὑποθέσεις in the treatise and found out to his satisfaction what purpose they served? Does he now, to communicate this discovery to the readers, use the dramatic device of making Socrates ask whether his interpretation is correct and Zeno confirm that in substance it is? Why, anyhow, must this be more, or much more, than a dramatic device—especially if the device has a bearing on the later developments in the dialogue? [introduction p. 116-118]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1016","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1016,"authors_free":[{"id":1532,"entry_id":1016,"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":"The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined","main_title":{"title":"The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined"},"abstract":"This paper makes no attempt to compete with the brilliant studies through which, in the last thirty years, several scholars have advanced our understanding of the evidence for Zeno of Elea, and in particular of the verbatim preserved fragments. In fact, my intention is not to replace theories with other theories but to create doubt about matters that, for some time, have been taken for granted, and to change confident assumptions into hypotheses that would tolerate others alongside them.\r\nAccounts of Zeno's philosophy generally take as their starting point some well-known statements at the beginning of Plato's Parmenides. Given the paucity of reports bearing on his work as a whole, the information here vouchsafed about its content and purpose must seem priceless. It also seems authoritative, the idea of examining it critically almost sacrilegious. Zeno, we read here, wrote against those who ridiculed the thesis of his master Parmenides that \"all is one.\" The opponents tried to discredit this thesis by pointing out contradictions and \"ridiculous\" consequences resulting from the Parmenidean \"One.\" In return, Zeno took the adversaries' position that \"there are many\" as the basis for his reasoning, deducing from it, in each of his arguments, contradictions and other results even more \"ridiculous\" than what the opponents had found in Parmenides' theory.\r\nIt is easy to see why this testimony is so irresistible. Plato himself distinguishes between what is certain and what allows doubt and more than one explanation. Doubt is possible about certain accidental aspects (t\u00f4n symbeb\u00eakot\u00f4n ti, Zeno says, 128c5 ff.), i.e., whether the ultimate convergence of the two treatises was meant to be obvious or to be concealed from the reader, and also whether Zeno was anxious to build up a philosophical stature for himself or merely to help Parmenides against the detractors. Yet, precisely because doubt is allowed on such items of secondary importance, the far more important statements concerning the subject matter, the method, and the objectives of Zeno's treatise seem immune to attack.\r\nScholars writing on Zeno have usually accepted Plato's testimony as a matter of course or with the most perfunctory justification. A few have given reasons why the testimony deserves confidence, and no reason could be more attractive than the sensitive comments of Hermann Fr\u00e4nkel about Plato as being, by his own individuality and temperament, exceptionally qualified to appreciate the peculiar, rather wanton humor that Fr\u00e4nkel has found lurking in Zeno's sallies. I should be loath to disagree with this argument, even if it did not form part of what Gregory Vlastos has justly called \"easily the most important philological monograph published on the subject in several decades.\" Still, I am not the first to question the element of wantonness and trickery in Zeno's proofs, and even if it were granted, one might wonder whether Plato's own humor is not normally more gentle and urbane (asteion)\u2014the exuberance of the \"youthful\" Protagoras being an exception\u2014and whether even a congenial sense of humor would guarantee the correct understanding of a philosophical endeavor.\r\nBut it is perhaps more profitable to develop Fr\u00e4nkel's doubts \"as to how much Plato, or his readers for that matter, would be interested in problems of mere historicity.\" For these doubts apply even farther than Fr\u00e4nkel may be inclined to think. Would Plato really wish to make sure that his readers had a correct knowledge of what Zeno's treatise intended and achieved? Had he carefully and with something approaching philological accuracy worked his way through all the \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in the treatise and found out to his satisfaction what purpose they served? Does he now, to communicate this discovery to the readers, use the dramatic device of making Socrates ask whether his interpretation is correct and Zeno confirm that in substance it is? Why, anyhow, must this be more, or much more, than a dramatic device\u2014especially if the device has a bearing on the later developments in the dialogue? [introduction p. 116-118]","btype":3,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6pPpfWHeO2IY3ri","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":316,"full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1016,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"16","issue":"2","pages":"116-141"}},"sort":["The Tradition about Zeno of Elea Re-Examined"]}

The Trouble with Fragrance, 1990
By: Ellis, John
Title The Trouble with Fragrance
Type Article
Language English
Date 1990
Journal Phronesis
Volume 35
Issue 3
Pages 290-302
Categories no categories
Author(s) Ellis, John
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
By 'in a subject' I mean what (a) is in something, not as a part, and (b) cannot exist separately from what it is in. (Aristotle, Categories 1a24-5)

These lines have been extensively discussed in recent years. The crux of the debate is whether the existence clause (b) is to be construed in a way that commits Aristotle to particular, non-sharable properties. On the "traditional" interpretation, a property is in an individual thing as in a subject, say, Socrates, only if it cannot exist apart from Socrates. This implies that the properties of an individual thing are peculiar to it or non-sharable, in the sense that they cannot be in any other thing. The particular white in Socrates, for example, ceases to exist when he gets a tan. It does not move on to inhere in Callias or any other subject, nor is the white in Callias numerically the same white as the white in Socrates. Although both are white, perhaps even the same shade of white, nonetheless, they are numerically distinct particulars inhering in different individual things.

Many recent commentators have tried to "rescue" Aristotle from the alleged commitment to such Stoutian particulars. Their strategy has been to weaken (b) so that the particular inherent property is not existentially dependent on the very particular substance it inheres in. G.E.L. Owen opened the debate by arguing that (b) can mean "cannot exist without something to contain it," and thus Aristotle is only committed to the view that particular properties need some substance or other in order to exist. A particular white, for example, would be a particular shade of white, which could, of course, be exemplified by more than one particular substance.

The task I’ve set for myself in this paper is not to argue for either the weak or the strong interpretation of inherence in Aristotle. That is already a well-trodden path. Instead, I shall look at what the ancient commentators on Aristotle had to say on the subject. Which interpretation, the strong or the weak, do they support? My strategy is to focus on one of the many problems they consider, that of fragrance, and to see if their treatment of it yields an answer.

The fragrance problem attacks the basis of Aristotle's ontology—the distinction between substance and accident. Didn’t Aristotle say that accidents cannot exist apart from that in which they inhere? But fragrances seem to travel to us from their subjects, and aren’t they accidents? In the attempts, from Porphyry (232–309 AD) to Elias (fl. 541), to save Aristotle’s ontology from this objection, we shall find, I hope to show, an interesting development in the complexity of the discussions. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the problem, the discussions move into psychological theory, and we find that, in order for his ontology to be saved, Aristotle’s psychological theory must be deepened.
Concluding Remarks

There seems to be a clear development in the way the commentators construed "in a subject." Starting with Porphyry’s tense solution, it is possible to see a gradual movement away from that solution and the weak construal it implies, toward the stronger reading implied by the other solutions. Ammonius introduces an alternative, the effluence solution, albeit without indicating his preference. His students, Philoponus and Simplicius, add further developments or modifications to his view: Simplicius, by rejecting the tense solution and offering new alternatives; and Philoponus, by turning the discussion more toward psychology and revealing both the conflict between the effluence and diosmic theories and his preference for the latter.

This shift in the discussion toward psychology is evidenced by Olympiodorus, who responds to the fragrance problem only with alternative psychological theories, making no mention of the tense solution. Finally, Elias, although mentioning the tense solution, devotes most of his energy to evaluating the alternative psychological answers to the fragrance problem. [introduction p. 290-291; conclusion p. 302]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"751","_score":null,"_source":{"id":751,"authors_free":[{"id":1116,"entry_id":751,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":81,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ellis, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Ellis","norm_person":{"id":81,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Ellis","full_name":"Ellis, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Trouble with Fragrance","main_title":{"title":"The Trouble with Fragrance"},"abstract":"By 'in a subject' I mean what (a) is in something, not as a part, and (b) cannot exist separately from what it is in. (Aristotle, Categories 1a24-5)\r\n\r\nThese lines have been extensively discussed in recent years. The crux of the debate is whether the existence clause (b) is to be construed in a way that commits Aristotle to particular, non-sharable properties. On the \"traditional\" interpretation, a property is in an individual thing as in a subject, say, Socrates, only if it cannot exist apart from Socrates. This implies that the properties of an individual thing are peculiar to it or non-sharable, in the sense that they cannot be in any other thing. The particular white in Socrates, for example, ceases to exist when he gets a tan. It does not move on to inhere in Callias or any other subject, nor is the white in Callias numerically the same white as the white in Socrates. Although both are white, perhaps even the same shade of white, nonetheless, they are numerically distinct particulars inhering in different individual things.\r\n\r\nMany recent commentators have tried to \"rescue\" Aristotle from the alleged commitment to such Stoutian particulars. Their strategy has been to weaken (b) so that the particular inherent property is not existentially dependent on the very particular substance it inheres in. G.E.L. Owen opened the debate by arguing that (b) can mean \"cannot exist without something to contain it,\" and thus Aristotle is only committed to the view that particular properties need some substance or other in order to exist. A particular white, for example, would be a particular shade of white, which could, of course, be exemplified by more than one particular substance.\r\n\r\nThe task I\u2019ve set for myself in this paper is not to argue for either the weak or the strong interpretation of inherence in Aristotle. That is already a well-trodden path. Instead, I shall look at what the ancient commentators on Aristotle had to say on the subject. Which interpretation, the strong or the weak, do they support? My strategy is to focus on one of the many problems they consider, that of fragrance, and to see if their treatment of it yields an answer.\r\n\r\nThe fragrance problem attacks the basis of Aristotle's ontology\u2014the distinction between substance and accident. Didn\u2019t Aristotle say that accidents cannot exist apart from that in which they inhere? But fragrances seem to travel to us from their subjects, and aren\u2019t they accidents? In the attempts, from Porphyry (232\u2013309 AD) to Elias (fl. 541), to save Aristotle\u2019s ontology from this objection, we shall find, I hope to show, an interesting development in the complexity of the discussions. Not surprisingly, given the nature of the problem, the discussions move into psychological theory, and we find that, in order for his ontology to be saved, Aristotle\u2019s psychological theory must be deepened.\r\nConcluding Remarks\r\n\r\nThere seems to be a clear development in the way the commentators construed \"in a subject.\" Starting with Porphyry\u2019s tense solution, it is possible to see a gradual movement away from that solution and the weak construal it implies, toward the stronger reading implied by the other solutions. Ammonius introduces an alternative, the effluence solution, albeit without indicating his preference. His students, Philoponus and Simplicius, add further developments or modifications to his view: Simplicius, by rejecting the tense solution and offering new alternatives; and Philoponus, by turning the discussion more toward psychology and revealing both the conflict between the effluence and diosmic theories and his preference for the latter.\r\n\r\nThis shift in the discussion toward psychology is evidenced by Olympiodorus, who responds to the fragrance problem only with alternative psychological theories, making no mention of the tense solution. Finally, Elias, although mentioning the tense solution, devotes most of his energy to evaluating the alternative psychological answers to the fragrance problem. [introduction p. 290-291; conclusion p. 302]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HQWPG36viwyMCbr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":81,"full_name":"Ellis, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":751,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"35","issue":"3","pages":"290-302"}},"sort":["The Trouble with Fragrance"]}

The development of Philoponus’ thought and its chronology, 1990
By: Verrycken, Koenraad, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title The development of Philoponus’ thought and its chronology
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1990
Published in Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Pages 233-274
Categories no categories
Author(s) Verrycken, Koenraad
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
The position I should like to defend is to some extent intermediate between that of Gudeman and that of Ilvrard. I think Ilvrard is right in rejecting the hypothesis of Philoponus' conversion. But I also think Gudeman was right in assuming—more or less conjecturally—a duality in Philoponus’ philosophical work. Both Gudeman and Ilvrard, however, pose the problem wrongly in terms of ‘religious conviction’ only. If Philoponus did not develop a Christian philosophy in his first philosophical period, that does not show that he must have been a pagan at that time. And if he was born a Christian, that does not establish that his philosophy must always have been Christian in character. Philosophy is one thing, religion another.

In my opinion, the problem should first be posed on the purely philosophical level: what does the author say? Only afterwards can one try to ‘project’ the results of the philosophical analysis onto the levels of biography and psychology. This is the method I employ.

To start with, I shall outline very briefly the main characteristics of the philosophical systems of ‘Philoponus 1’ and ‘Philoponus 2’, as I shall call them. Then I shall try to piece together something of what can reasonably be said about Philoponus’ biography. Thirdly, I shall propose the first sketch of a new solution to the problem of the chronology of the author’s Aristotelian commentaries. I shall finish with some remarks on the development of Philoponus 2. [introduction p. 236]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"449","_score":null,"_source":{"id":449,"authors_free":[{"id":601,"entry_id":449,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":347,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verrycken, Koenraad","free_first_name":"Koenraad","free_last_name":"Verrycken","norm_person":{"id":347,"first_name":"Koenraad","last_name":"Verrycken","full_name":"Verrycken, Koenraad","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1048689964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":602,"entry_id":449,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The development of Philoponus\u2019 thought and its chronology","main_title":{"title":"The development of Philoponus\u2019 thought and its chronology"},"abstract":"The position I should like to defend is to some extent intermediate between that of Gudeman and that of Ilvrard. I think Ilvrard is right in rejecting the hypothesis of Philoponus' conversion. But I also think Gudeman was right in assuming\u2014more or less conjecturally\u2014a duality in Philoponus\u2019 philosophical work. Both Gudeman and Ilvrard, however, pose the problem wrongly in terms of \u2018religious conviction\u2019 only. If Philoponus did not develop a Christian philosophy in his first philosophical period, that does not show that he must have been a pagan at that time. And if he was born a Christian, that does not establish that his philosophy must always have been Christian in character. Philosophy is one thing, religion another.\r\n\r\nIn my opinion, the problem should first be posed on the purely philosophical level: what does the author say? Only afterwards can one try to \u2018project\u2019 the results of the philosophical analysis onto the levels of biography and psychology. This is the method I employ.\r\n\r\nTo start with, I shall outline very briefly the main characteristics of the philosophical systems of \u2018Philoponus 1\u2019 and \u2018Philoponus 2\u2019, as I shall call them. Then I shall try to piece together something of what can reasonably be said about Philoponus\u2019 biography. Thirdly, I shall propose the first sketch of a new solution to the problem of the chronology of the author\u2019s Aristotelian commentaries. I shall finish with some remarks on the development of Philoponus 2. [introduction p. 236]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/d1kiVpaSlWKa7uY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":347,"full_name":"Verrycken, Koenraad","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":449,"section_of":1453,"pages":"233-274","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The development of Philoponus\u2019 thought and its chronology"]}

The school of Alexander?, 1990
By: Sharples, Robert W., Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title The school of Alexander?
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1990
Published in Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Pages 83-111
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
Alexander of Aphrodisias was appointed by the emperors as a public teacher of Aristotelian philosophy at some time between 198 and 209 AD.
As a public teacher, it is likely that he had, in some sense, a school. But trying to establish what happened in that school and how it functioned is comparable to the task we would face if we had to determine what went on in a philosophy department in a modern university based on a selection of books by the professor, a confused collection of his papers, the notes from which he lectured, and the essays of his students, with no obvious indication of which was which.

We know a considerable amount about the Neoplatonic schools of the fifth and sixth centuries AD and the study of Aristotle’s writings in them. We know the place they had in the curriculum, the order in which they were read, and we can compare the ways in which different commentators approached the question of the relationship between the works of Aristotle and those of Plato. We can trace relations between teachers and their pupils, and we are sometimes told that a particular text is a pupil’s record of his teacher’s utterances. The very organization of the commentaries sometimes reflects and clarifies the requirements of the teaching context—in the division of a commentary into separate lectures and the placing of a general summary of a section of argument before the discussion of particular points.

For the medieval period, too, we have copious information on the organization of teaching and study.
With Alexander, matters are very different. We know the names of some of his teachers, and his surviving works provide evidence for his disagreements with them. We also know something of his disagreements with other philosophers of his own generation or the generation before, and we can trace—however controversially—his influence on later thinkers.

But we do not know the name of a single one of his immediate pupils, and for all that we can tell, the influence of other writers on him might have been largely, and his influence on other writers entirely, through the medium of writing rather than personal encounter. After all, we are explicitly told that Alexander’s commentaries were among those read in Plotinus’ school.

It is, however, in principle unlikely that any thinker in the ancient world would have communicated entirely through the written, rather than the spoken, word. Some of the writings attributed to Alexander are most naturally seen in the context of his teaching activities or debates within his circle.

These writings include commentaries on Aristotelian works, treatises or monographs on particular topics such as those On the Soul and On Fate, and numerous short discussions. Three books of these collected discussions are entitled phusikai skholikai aporiai kai luseis—‘School-discussion problems and solutions on nature’; a fourth is titled Problems on Ethics but sub-titled, no doubt in imitation of the preceding three books when it was united with them, skholikai êthikai aporiai kai luseis—‘School-discussion problems and solutions on ethics.’

A further collection was transmitted as the second book of Alexander’s treatise On the Soul and labeled mantissa or ‘makeweight’ by the Berlin editor Bruns. Other texts essentially similar to those in these collections survive in Arabic, though not in Greek, and there is evidence to suggest that there were other collections now lost.

The circumstances in which these collections were put together are unclear; it was not always expertly done, and while some of the titles attached to particular pieces seem to preserve valuable additional information, others are inept or unhelpful. Nor is it clear at what date the collections were assembled.

It is not my concern here to provide a full enumeration of the works attributed to Alexander or to classify them in detail. That has been done elsewhere by both myself and others. Rather, I will proceed to a discussion of what the works can tell us about the context in which they arose. It will be helpful to start with a consideration of the relation of Alexander’s works to those of his predecessors, teachers, and contemporaries. [introduction p. 83-85]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1027","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1027,"authors_free":[{"id":1551,"entry_id":1027,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1552,"entry_id":1027,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The school of Alexander?","main_title":{"title":"The school of Alexander?"},"abstract":"Alexander of Aphrodisias was appointed by the emperors as a public teacher of Aristotelian philosophy at some time between 198 and 209 AD.\r\nAs a public teacher, it is likely that he had, in some sense, a school. But trying to establish what happened in that school and how it functioned is comparable to the task we would face if we had to determine what went on in a philosophy department in a modern university based on a selection of books by the professor, a confused collection of his papers, the notes from which he lectured, and the essays of his students, with no obvious indication of which was which.\r\n\r\nWe know a considerable amount about the Neoplatonic schools of the fifth and sixth centuries AD and the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings in them. We know the place they had in the curriculum, the order in which they were read, and we can compare the ways in which different commentators approached the question of the relationship between the works of Aristotle and those of Plato. We can trace relations between teachers and their pupils, and we are sometimes told that a particular text is a pupil\u2019s record of his teacher\u2019s utterances. The very organization of the commentaries sometimes reflects and clarifies the requirements of the teaching context\u2014in the division of a commentary into separate lectures and the placing of a general summary of a section of argument before the discussion of particular points.\r\n\r\nFor the medieval period, too, we have copious information on the organization of teaching and study.\r\nWith Alexander, matters are very different. We know the names of some of his teachers, and his surviving works provide evidence for his disagreements with them. We also know something of his disagreements with other philosophers of his own generation or the generation before, and we can trace\u2014however controversially\u2014his influence on later thinkers.\r\n\r\nBut we do not know the name of a single one of his immediate pupils, and for all that we can tell, the influence of other writers on him might have been largely, and his influence on other writers entirely, through the medium of writing rather than personal encounter. After all, we are explicitly told that Alexander\u2019s commentaries were among those read in Plotinus\u2019 school.\r\n\r\nIt is, however, in principle unlikely that any thinker in the ancient world would have communicated entirely through the written, rather than the spoken, word. Some of the writings attributed to Alexander are most naturally seen in the context of his teaching activities or debates within his circle.\r\n\r\nThese writings include commentaries on Aristotelian works, treatises or monographs on particular topics such as those On the Soul and On Fate, and numerous short discussions. Three books of these collected discussions are entitled phusikai skholikai aporiai kai luseis\u2014\u2018School-discussion problems and solutions on nature\u2019; a fourth is titled Problems on Ethics but sub-titled, no doubt in imitation of the preceding three books when it was united with them, skholikai \u00eathikai aporiai kai luseis\u2014\u2018School-discussion problems and solutions on ethics.\u2019\r\n\r\nA further collection was transmitted as the second book of Alexander\u2019s treatise On the Soul and labeled mantissa or \u2018makeweight\u2019 by the Berlin editor Bruns. Other texts essentially similar to those in these collections survive in Arabic, though not in Greek, and there is evidence to suggest that there were other collections now lost.\r\n\r\nThe circumstances in which these collections were put together are unclear; it was not always expertly done, and while some of the titles attached to particular pieces seem to preserve valuable additional information, others are inept or unhelpful. Nor is it clear at what date the collections were assembled.\r\n\r\nIt is not my concern here to provide a full enumeration of the works attributed to Alexander or to classify them in detail. That has been done elsewhere by both myself and others. Rather, I will proceed to a discussion of what the works can tell us about the context in which they arose. It will be helpful to start with a consideration of the relation of Alexander\u2019s works to those of his predecessors, teachers, and contemporaries. [introduction p. 83-85]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wgzq8ffCF70YlYd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1027,"section_of":1453,"pages":"83-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The school of Alexander?"]}

Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?, 1990
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1990
Published in Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence
Pages 113-123
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
[B]oth the content of Themistius’ works, and such evidence as we 
have  of  the  commentators’  attitudes  to  him,  show  that  he  was 
predominantly a Peripatetic. In this he stood out against the tendencies 
of  his  time.  His  frequently  expressed  admiration  for  Plato  does  not 
invalidate this conclusion. Themistius may rightly claim to have been the 
last major figure in antiquity who was a genuine follower of Aristotle. For 
him,  unlike  his  contemporaries,  Plato  does  not  surpass  the  master  of 
those  who know but he,  and  Socrates, ‘innanzi agli  altri  piu presso gli 
stanno’. [Conclusion, p. 123]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"875","_score":null,"_source":{"id":875,"authors_free":[{"id":1285,"entry_id":875,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1286,"entry_id":875,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?","main_title":{"title":"Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?"},"abstract":"[B]oth the content of Themistius\u2019 works, and such evidence as we \r\nhave of the commentators\u2019 attitudes to him, show that he was \r\npredominantly a Peripatetic. In this he stood out against the tendencies \r\nof his time. His frequently expressed admiration for Plato does not \r\ninvalidate this conclusion. Themistius may rightly claim to have been the \r\nlast major figure in antiquity who was a genuine follower of Aristotle. For \r\nhim, unlike his contemporaries, Plato does not surpass the master of \r\nthose who know but he, and Socrates, \u2018innanzi agli altri piu presso gli \r\nstanno\u2019. [Conclusion, p. 123]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j4M1Faq3An8bJ7v","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":875,"section_of":1453,"pages":"113-123","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?"]}

Theophrast und der Beginn des Archereferats von Simplikios Physikkommentar, 1989
By: Wiesner, Jürgen
Title Theophrast und der Beginn des Archereferats von Simplikios Physikkommentar
Type Article
Language German
Date 1989
Journal Hermes
Volume 117
Issue 3
Pages 288-303
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Für die Tradierung der umstrittenen Xenophanes-Prädikate ergibt sich also folgendes Bild:

    Theophrasts Urteil, dass Xenophanes sein Prinzip weder eindeutig als begrenzt noch unbegrenzt, weder eindeutig als bewegt noch unbewegt benannt habe, schließt referierende Einzelangaben über diese uneinheitlichen Lehrmeinungen des Kolophoniers nicht aus.

    Das negative „οὔτε-οὔτε“-Urteil Theophrasts ist in der Vorlage von MXG und Simplikios (In Phys. 22,30–23,9) später missverstanden worden: Für den dort vorliegenden positiven „οὔτε-οὔτε“-Ausschluss (das Prinzip sei weder begrenzt noch unbegrenzt, weder bewegt noch unbewegt) wurde eine auf späteren Konzepten beruhende Begründung hinzugefügt.

    Simplikios hat sich von der Quelle, die ihm und MXG vorlag, irreführen lassen und die äußerlich gleichlautende Auskunft Theophrasts, die er In Phys. 22,26 zitiert, in ihrem wahren Gehalt verkannt. Daher hat er die Argumentation, die aus der mit MXG gemeinsamen Quelle stammt und die gar nicht zu Theophrasts negativem Urteil passt, ab 22,31 folgen lassen.

    Die Lehrmeinung vom begrenzten, kugeligen Gott gelangte von Theophrast in die Doxographie und zu Alexander. Auch Simplikios kennt eine solche Konzeption aus dem Eresier (In Phys. 28,4 ff.). Er unternimmt eine Harmonisierung des „begrenzt“ mit der „οὔτε-οὔτε“-Bestimmung (29,7 ff.). Da er bei Theophrast sowohl die (von ihm fälschlich als positiver Ausschluss verstandene) „οὔτε-οὔτε“-Bestimmung als auch das einfache Prädikat „begrenzt“ las, könnte er sogar durch den Eresier zu seiner Harmonisierung angeregt worden sein. [conclusion p. 302-303]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"835","_score":null,"_source":{"id":835,"authors_free":[{"id":1239,"entry_id":835,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrast und der Beginn des Archereferats von Simplikios Physikkommentar","main_title":{"title":"Theophrast und der Beginn des Archereferats von Simplikios Physikkommentar"},"abstract":"F\u00fcr die Tradierung der umstrittenen Xenophanes-Pr\u00e4dikate ergibt sich also folgendes Bild:\r\n\r\n Theophrasts Urteil, dass Xenophanes sein Prinzip weder eindeutig als begrenzt noch unbegrenzt, weder eindeutig als bewegt noch unbewegt benannt habe, schlie\u00dft referierende Einzelangaben \u00fcber diese uneinheitlichen Lehrmeinungen des Kolophoniers nicht aus.\r\n\r\n Das negative \u201e\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5-\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\u201c-Urteil Theophrasts ist in der Vorlage von MXG und Simplikios (In Phys. 22,30\u201323,9) sp\u00e4ter missverstanden worden: F\u00fcr den dort vorliegenden positiven \u201e\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5-\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\u201c-Ausschluss (das Prinzip sei weder begrenzt noch unbegrenzt, weder bewegt noch unbewegt) wurde eine auf sp\u00e4teren Konzepten beruhende Begr\u00fcndung hinzugef\u00fcgt.\r\n\r\n Simplikios hat sich von der Quelle, die ihm und MXG vorlag, irref\u00fchren lassen und die \u00e4u\u00dferlich gleichlautende Auskunft Theophrasts, die er In Phys. 22,26 zitiert, in ihrem wahren Gehalt verkannt. Daher hat er die Argumentation, die aus der mit MXG gemeinsamen Quelle stammt und die gar nicht zu Theophrasts negativem Urteil passt, ab 22,31 folgen lassen.\r\n\r\n Die Lehrmeinung vom begrenzten, kugeligen Gott gelangte von Theophrast in die Doxographie und zu Alexander. Auch Simplikios kennt eine solche Konzeption aus dem Eresier (In Phys. 28,4 ff.). Er unternimmt eine Harmonisierung des \u201ebegrenzt\u201c mit der \u201e\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5-\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\u201c-Bestimmung (29,7 ff.). Da er bei Theophrast sowohl die (von ihm f\u00e4lschlich als positiver Ausschluss verstandene) \u201e\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5-\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\u201c-Bestimmung als auch das einfache Pr\u00e4dikat \u201ebegrenzt\u201c las, k\u00f6nnte er sogar durch den Eresier zu seiner Harmonisierung angeregt worden sein. [conclusion p. 302-303]","btype":3,"date":"1989","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GgDE7e58wFISvqX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":835,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"117","issue":"3","pages":"288-303"}},"sort":["Theophrast und der Beginn des Archereferats von Simplikios Physikkommentar"]}

Theophrastus of Eresus. On his Life and Work, 1985
By: Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Huby, Pamela M. (Ed.), Long, Anthony A. (Ed.)
Title Theophrastus of Eresus. On his Life and Work
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1985
Publication Place New Brunswick
Publisher Transaction Books
Series Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities
Volume 2
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Fortenbaugh, William W. , Huby, Pamela M. , Long, Anthony A.
Translator(s)
This series in the field of classics grew out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking whose goal is to collect, edit, and comment on the fragments of Theophrastus, Greek philosopher, Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Contributions are by international experts, and each volume will have a particular focus. Volume I is devoted to Arius Didymus, court philosopher to Caesar Augustus and author of an extensive survey of Stoic and Peripatetic ethics. Volumes II and III will concentrate on Theophrastus and disseminate knowledge gained through work on the project. Volume IV will focus on Cicero and his knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy.

{"_index":"sire","_id":"284","_score":null,"_source":{"id":284,"authors_free":[{"id":2508,"entry_id":284,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2509,"entry_id":284,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":200,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Huby, Pamela M. ","free_first_name":"Pamela M.","free_last_name":"Huby","norm_person":{"id":200,"first_name":"Pamela M.","last_name":"Huby","full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120868962","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2510,"entry_id":284,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":515,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Long, Anthony A.","free_first_name":"Anthony A.","free_last_name":"Long","norm_person":{"id":515,"first_name":"Anthony A.","last_name":"Long","full_name":"Long, Anthony A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118959603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus of Eresus. On his Life and Work","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus of Eresus. On his Life and Work"},"abstract":"This series in the field of classics grew out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking whose goal is to collect, edit, and comment on the fragments of Theophrastus, Greek philosopher, Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Contributions are by international experts, and each volume will have a particular focus. Volume I is devoted to Arius Didymus, court philosopher to Caesar Augustus and author of an extensive survey of Stoic and Peripatetic ethics. Volumes II and III will concentrate on Theophrastus and disseminate knowledge gained through work on the project. Volume IV will focus on Cicero and his knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy.","btype":1,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pfDsepdfrPg1Fk8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":200,"full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":515,"full_name":"Long, Anthony A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":284,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Books","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Theophrastus of Eresus. On his Life and Work"]}

Theophrastus on the Heavens, 1985
By: Sharples, Robert W., Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Theophrastus on the Heavens
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1985
Published in Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule
Pages 577-593
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
In this paper, I shall be discussing two topics: firstly, whether Theophrastus followed Aristotle in holding that the heavens were made of a substance—the ether—distinct from the four sublunary elements, or whether, as some have argued, he held that the heavens were made of fire; and secondly, the exact interpretation of certain technical terms of astronomy attributed to Theophrastus. I am throughout indebted to the work of my colleagues in Project Theophrastus, and especially to Professor William Fortenbaugh and Mrs. Pamela Huby. It was an interest in the Peripatetic tradition generally that led me to work on Theophrastus, and that interest has been both formed and stimulated by the works of Professor Paul Moraux; the theme of the present paper is one that he has himself discussed. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1028","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1028,"authors_free":[{"id":1553,"entry_id":1028,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1554,"entry_id":1028,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus on the Heavens","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus on the Heavens"},"abstract":"In this paper, I shall be discussing two topics: firstly, whether Theophrastus followed Aristotle in holding that the heavens were made of a substance\u2014the ether\u2014distinct from the four sublunary elements, or whether, as some have argued, he held that the heavens were made of fire; and secondly, the exact interpretation of certain technical terms of astronomy attributed to Theophrastus. I am throughout indebted to the work of my colleagues in Project Theophrastus, and especially to Professor William Fortenbaugh and Mrs. Pamela Huby. It was an interest in the Peripatetic tradition generally that led me to work on Theophrastus, and that interest has been both formed and stimulated by the works of Professor Paul Moraux; the theme of the present paper is one that he has himself discussed. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V9G65AXaBlaZSt7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1028,"section_of":190,"pages":"577-593","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":190,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Plezia\/Verdenius\/P\u00e9pin1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Theophrastus on the Heavens"]}

Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.), 1987
By: Bossier, Fernand, Hadot, Ilsetraut (Ed.)
Title Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.)
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1987
Published in Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985
Pages 289-325
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bossier, Fernand
Editor(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Translator(s)
Si l’on essaie d’évaluer l’influence exercée par un auteur grec sur l’Occident au XIIIe et XIVe s., l’on doit se tourner tout d’abord vers l’étude des traductions. En effet, bien que le nombre de ceux qui connaissaient le grec ait été plus élevé qu’on ne le croit d’ordinaire, la traduction n’en était pas moins, à cette époque et pour longtemps encore, le seul canal par lequel les idées des philosophes et savants grecs pouvaient atteindre les écoles ; le cas des dialogues de Platon est trop connu pour que nous nous y attardions longtemps. L’intention de notre communication, qui concerne la survie du commentaire In De caelo en Occident, sera donc double : d’une part, elle fera l’historique des traductions qui en ont été faites tout au long du XIIIe s. ; d’autre part, elle présentera les résultats d’une première reconnaissance d’un terrain très vaste et à peine défriché, à savoir celui de l’influence qu’ont eue ces traductions sur les traités médiévaux. [introduction p. 289]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"568","_score":null,"_source":{"id":568,"authors_free":[{"id":806,"entry_id":568,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bossier, Fernand","free_first_name":"Fernand","free_last_name":"Bossier","norm_person":{"id":12,"first_name":"Fernand ","last_name":"Bossier","full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017981663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":807,"entry_id":568,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.)","main_title":{"title":"Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.)"},"abstract":"Si l\u2019on essaie d\u2019\u00e9valuer l\u2019influence exerc\u00e9e par un auteur grec sur l\u2019Occident au XIIIe et XIVe s., l\u2019on doit se tourner tout d\u2019abord vers l\u2019\u00e9tude des traductions. En effet, bien que le nombre de ceux qui connaissaient le grec ait \u00e9t\u00e9 plus \u00e9lev\u00e9 qu\u2019on ne le croit d\u2019ordinaire, la traduction n\u2019en \u00e9tait pas moins, \u00e0 cette \u00e9poque et pour longtemps encore, le seul canal par lequel les id\u00e9es des philosophes et savants grecs pouvaient atteindre les \u00e9coles ; le cas des dialogues de Platon est trop connu pour que nous nous y attardions longtemps. L\u2019intention de notre communication, qui concerne la survie du commentaire In De caelo en Occident, sera donc double : d\u2019une part, elle fera l\u2019historique des traductions qui en ont \u00e9t\u00e9 faites tout au long du XIIIe s. ; d\u2019autre part, elle pr\u00e9sentera les r\u00e9sultats d\u2019une premi\u00e8re reconnaissance d\u2019un terrain tr\u00e8s vaste et \u00e0 peine d\u00e9frich\u00e9, \u00e0 savoir celui de l\u2019influence qu\u2019ont eue ces traductions sur les trait\u00e9s m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux. [introduction p. 289]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aFzlEmFULfnA7eU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":568,"section_of":171,"pages":"289-325","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.)"]}

Vorschläge zur Lösung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios, 1974
By: Wiesner, Jürgen, Wiesner, Jürgen (Ed.)
Title Vorschläge zur Lösung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1974
Published in PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus
Pages 261-319
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Editor(s) Wiesner, Jürgen
Translator(s)
Zwischen den Xenophanesreferaten von MXG und Simplikios 
besteht keine völlige Parallelität,  weshalb inXG als 
Quelle von Simplikios ausscheidet.  Denn während die 
MXG-Prädikate  1,  2,  3,  6  (977  a 14-36,  977 b 3-18;  und 
Simpl.Phys.  22,31- 23,9 einer gemeinsamen Vorlage ent­
stammen,  die wir wegen gewisser Eigenheiten als "spät- 
eleatische Quelle"  bezeichneten, hat MXG zusätzlich 
einen Mittelteil  (977 a 37- 977 b 2; mit formal vom 
Rest abweichenden (kürzere und einfachere Aussage ohne 
Dichotomie) und zu diesem teilweise widersprüchlichen 
Prädikaten (Unvereinbarkeit Kugel - Grenzantinomie;. 
Prädikate dieses MXG-Mittelteils findet Simplikios Phys. 
23,16 ff.  bei Alexander und greift sie an;  da aber auch 
der zuverlässige Theophrastexzerptor hippolytos sie in 
gleicher Polge wie Alexander innerhalb einer Prädikat­
reihe für den Gott des Xenophanes nennt (Ref.  I  14,2), 
geht also der Mittelteil des MXG-Referats auf dieselben 
Ausführungen des Eresiers zurück.Doch auch Simplikios gibt über das mit MXG Gemeinsame 
hinaus Auszüge aus Theophrast (dessen Dame Phys.  22,28- 
29), die unverkennbar Elemente aus Aristoteles Metaphys. 
986 b 10 ff.  enthalten.  [conclusion p. 319]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"433","_score":null,"_source":{"id":433,"authors_free":[{"id":583,"entry_id":433,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2170,"entry_id":433,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Vorschl\u00e4ge zur L\u00f6sung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Vorschl\u00e4ge zur L\u00f6sung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios"},"abstract":"Zwischen den Xenophanesreferaten von MXG und Simplikios \r\nbesteht keine v\u00f6llige Parallelit\u00e4t, weshalb inXG als \r\nQuelle von Simplikios ausscheidet. Denn w\u00e4hrend die \r\nMXG-Pr\u00e4dikate 1, 2, 3, 6 (977 a 14-36, 977 b 3-18; und \r\nSimpl.Phys. 22,31- 23,9 einer gemeinsamen Vorlage ent\u00ad\r\nstammen, die wir wegen gewisser Eigenheiten als \"sp\u00e4t- \r\neleatische Quelle\" bezeichneten, hat MXG zus\u00e4tzlich \r\neinen Mittelteil (977 a 37- 977 b 2; mit formal vom \r\nRest abweichenden (k\u00fcrzere und einfachere Aussage ohne \r\nDichotomie) und zu diesem teilweise widerspr\u00fcchlichen \r\nPr\u00e4dikaten (Unvereinbarkeit Kugel - Grenzantinomie;. \r\nPr\u00e4dikate dieses MXG-Mittelteils findet Simplikios Phys. \r\n23,16 ff. bei Alexander und greift sie an; da aber auch \r\nder zuverl\u00e4ssige Theophrastexzerptor hippolytos sie in \r\ngleicher Polge wie Alexander innerhalb einer Pr\u00e4dikat\u00ad\r\nreihe f\u00fcr den Gott des Xenophanes nennt (Ref. I 14,2), \r\ngeht also der Mittelteil des MXG-Referats auf dieselben \r\nAusf\u00fchrungen des Eresiers zur\u00fcck.Doch auch Simplikios gibt \u00fcber das mit MXG Gemeinsame \r\nhinaus Ausz\u00fcge aus Theophrast (dessen Dame Phys. 22,28- \r\n29), die unverkennbar Elemente aus Aristoteles Metaphys. \r\n986 b 10 ff. enthalten. [conclusion p. 319]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tEjo8iqE5bxx49Z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":433,"section_of":2,"pages":"261-319","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Vorschl\u00e4ge zur L\u00f6sung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios"]}

Zeno on Plurality, 1982
By: Makin, Stephen
Title Zeno on Plurality
Type Article
Language English
Date 1982
Journal Phronesis
Volume 27
Issue 3
Pages 223-238
Categories no categories
Author(s) Makin, Stephen
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
 We want to 
discuss some Eleatic arguments against plurality, which are of  interest 
both in themselves and as precursors of Atomist thought. The arguments to 
be considered are from Zeno. 
We will have two guides in interpreting the arguments. First, they should 
be such that Atomist theory provides a plausible response to them; second, 
they should pose no threat to the Eleatic theory. [introduction p. 223]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"730","_score":null,"_source":{"id":730,"authors_free":[{"id":1093,"entry_id":730,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":460,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Makin, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Makin","norm_person":{"id":460,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Makin","full_name":"Makin, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Zeno on Plurality","main_title":{"title":"Zeno on Plurality"},"abstract":" We want to \r\ndiscuss some Eleatic arguments against plurality, which are of interest \r\nboth in themselves and as precursors of Atomist thought. The arguments to \r\nbe considered are from Zeno. \r\nWe will have two guides in interpreting the arguments. First, they should \r\nbe such that Atomist theory provides a plausible response to them; second, \r\nthey should pose no threat to the Eleatic theory. [introduction p. 223]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wOq1opqPtXhX1E6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":460,"full_name":"Makin, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":730,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"27","issue":"3","pages":"223-238"}},"sort":["Zeno on Plurality"]}

Zur Methodik antiker Exegese, 1974
By: Dörrie, Heinrich
Title Zur Methodik antiker Exegese
Type Article
Language German
Date 1974
Journal Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche
Volume 65
Pages 121-138
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dörrie, Heinrich
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Der Artikel behandelt die Exegese antiker Texte und beginnt mit einem Fokus auf die Auslegung Homers. Die homerischen Epen wurden für mehr als 1000 Jahre als Quelle für Bildung und Literatur betrachtet und waren daher von großer Bedeutung für die antike Exegese. Obwohl sich die Sprache, die Werte und die mythologischen Überzeugungen von antiken Texten von der modernen Welt unterscheiden, blieben sie von Bedeutung. Die allegorische Auslegung Homers war ein Schlüsselthema, das später auch auf die christliche Exegese angewendet wurde. Die antike Exegese befasste sich nicht nur mit literarischen Werken, sondern auch mit Orakeln, Sprichwörtern und Riten. Die Methode der antiken Exegese wurde in Alexandrien von den Philologen auf wenige, einfache Fakten reduziert, aber im Allgemeinen blieb sie kontinuierlich und bestätigte das Bildungserbe, auf das sie zurückgriff. Die christliche Exegese wurde stark von der vorausgehenden antiken Exegese beeinflusst, insbesondere von der stoischen Exegese, die Werkzeuge zur Interpretation von Texten bereitstellte. Die Artikel erörtert die Kontinuität der Exegese im Laufe der Jahrhunderte und betont, dass antike Exegese ein Bildungserbe darstellt, das über Jahrhunderte hinweg bewahrt wurde. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1293","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1293,"authors_free":[{"id":1882,"entry_id":1293,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":69,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich","free_first_name":"Heinrich","free_last_name":"D\u00f6rrie","norm_person":{"id":69,"first_name":"Heinrich ","last_name":"D\u00f6rrie","full_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118526375","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Zur Methodik antiker Exegese","main_title":{"title":"Zur Methodik antiker Exegese"},"abstract":"Der Artikel behandelt die Exegese antiker Texte und beginnt mit einem Fokus auf die Auslegung Homers. Die homerischen Epen wurden f\u00fcr mehr als 1000 Jahre als Quelle f\u00fcr Bildung und Literatur betrachtet und waren daher von gro\u00dfer Bedeutung f\u00fcr die antike Exegese. Obwohl sich die Sprache, die Werte und die mythologischen \u00dcberzeugungen von antiken Texten von der modernen Welt unterscheiden, blieben sie von Bedeutung. Die allegorische Auslegung Homers war ein Schl\u00fcsselthema, das sp\u00e4ter auch auf die christliche Exegese angewendet wurde. Die antike Exegese befasste sich nicht nur mit literarischen Werken, sondern auch mit Orakeln, Sprichw\u00f6rtern und Riten. Die Methode der antiken Exegese wurde in Alexandrien von den Philologen auf wenige, einfache Fakten reduziert, aber im Allgemeinen blieb sie kontinuierlich und best\u00e4tigte das Bildungserbe, auf das sie zur\u00fcckgriff. Die christliche Exegese wurde stark von der vorausgehenden antiken Exegese beeinflusst, insbesondere von der stoischen Exegese, die Werkzeuge zur Interpretation von Texten bereitstellte. Die Artikel er\u00f6rtert die Kontinuit\u00e4t der Exegese im Laufe der Jahrhunderte und betont, dass antike Exegese ein Bildungserbe darstellt, das \u00fcber Jahrhunderte hinweg bewahrt wurde. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pWm7MqqJ0rmmM7F","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":69,"full_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1293,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der \u00c4lteren Kirche","volume":"65","issue":"","pages":"121-138"}},"sort":["Zur Methodik antiker Exegese"]}

Études sur Parménide, Tome II: Problèmes d’interprétation, 1987
By: Aubenque, Pierre (Ed.)
Title Études sur Parménide, Tome II: Problèmes d’interprétation
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 1987
Publication Place Paris
Publisher Vrin
Series Bibliothèque d’histoire de la philosophie
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Aubenque, Pierre
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"372","_score":null,"_source":{"id":372,"authors_free":[{"id":1999,"entry_id":372,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u00c9tudes sur Parm\u00e9nide, Tome II: Probl\u00e8mes d\u2019interpr\u00e9tation","main_title":{"title":"\u00c9tudes sur Parm\u00e9nide, Tome II: Probl\u00e8mes d\u2019interpr\u00e9tation"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1987","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ojgpMQbpMPY4GeV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":372,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["\u00c9tudes sur Parm\u00e9nide, Tome II: Probl\u00e8mes d\u2019interpr\u00e9tation"]}

ΟΜΟΥ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΗΝ, 1971
By: Rösler, Wolfgang
Title ΟΜΟΥ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΑ ΠΑΝΤΑ ΗΝ
Type Article
Language German
Date 1971
Journal Hermes
Volume 99
Issue 2
Pages 246-248
Categories no categories
Author(s) Rösler, Wolfgang
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Wie alle umfangreicheren Fragmente der Abhandlung Περί φύσεως des Anaxagoras ist auch Fragment 1 (VS 59 B 1) durch den Kommentar des Simplikios zur aristotelischen Physik überliefert. Simplikios hatte die Möglichkeit, ein Exemplar der Schrift des ionischen Philosophen zu benutzen. In seiner ganzen Länge erscheint das Fragment, dessen Stellung am Anfang des Buches ausdrücklich bezeugt ist, nur einmal (155, 26); daneben gibt es weitere Passagen, in denen lediglich der einleitende Satz bzw. dessen Beginn zitiert wird.

Ein Überblick zeigt, dass zwischen den einzelnen Zitaten Unterschiede in der Wortstellung bestehen. Deshalb soll im Folgenden der Versuch unternommen werden, die ursprüngliche Anordnung in der Textvorlage des Simplikios zu rekonstruieren.

Bekanntlich wird der Anfang der Schrift des Anaxagoras seit Platon in der griechischen Literatur häufig zitiert. Untersucht man jedoch die entsprechenden Stellen – mit Ausnahme derer bei Simplikios – auf ihren Wert als Zeugen für den genauen Wortlaut des Anaxagoras-Textes, so zeigt sich ihre Bedeutungslosigkeit rasch. Platon und Aristoteles zitieren nicht direkt aus dem Buch des Anaxagoras, was auch ihrer sonst geübten Praxis bei der Wiedergabe fremder Meinungen widerspräche, sondern paraphrasieren frei nach dem Gedächtnis.

Die beiden Zitate bei Platon bieten zwar eine einheitliche Wortstellung (ὁμοῦ πάντα χρήματα), doch fehlt jeweils ἦν. In einem Fall (Gorg. 465d) sind die Worte des Anaxagoras sogar völlig in die betreffende Satzkonstruktion eingegangen. Letzteres trifft auch auf viele der Zitate bei Aristoteles zu, die im Übrigen Unterschiede in der Wortfolge zeigen und häufig unvollständig sind. Wie bei Platon umfassen auch die Zitate bei Aristoteles lediglich den unmittelbaren Beginn des Einleitungssatzes. Nur einmal (Met. 1056b 29) erscheint auch der folgende Satzabschnitt (bis πλῆθος καὶ σμικρότης, wobei diese beiden Substantive bei Aristoteles allerdings im Dativ stehen). Auch dieses Zitat besteht jedoch nur aus insgesamt neun Wörtern und konnte daher leicht aus dem Gedächtnis niedergeschrieben werden.

Noch geringeren Quellenwert haben die Zitate bei späteren Autoren, da diese ihre Kenntnis Platon, Aristoteles oder einer ihrerseits aus zweiter Hand schöpfenden doxographischen Vorlage verdankten oder die Einleitungsworte des Anaxagoras, die im Laufe der Zeit regelrecht zur παροιμία wurden, überhaupt nur vom Hörensagen kannten. In der Wortstellung treten fast alle denkbaren Variationen auf, kein Zitat reicht über den unmittelbaren Anfang der Schrift Περί φύσεως hinaus.

Als Grundlage der Rekonstruktion bleiben somit nur die Passagen bei Simplikios. Wie eingangs bemerkt, wird Fragment 1 im Physik-Kommentar nur an einer Stelle (155, 26) in seiner Gesamtheit zitiert, während die übrigen Zitate nur den Anfang wiedergeben; im günstigsten Fall reichen sie (wie schon bei Aristoteles) bis σμικρότης. Nun bietet 155, 26 eine Wortstellung, die nur bei Simplikios und im Physik-Kommentar nur hier begegnet, nämlich ὁμοῦ χρήματα πάντα ἦν.

Angesichts der Isoliertheit dieser Version trugen H. Diels und W. Kranz, die Herausgeber der Vorsokratiker-Fragmente, keine Bedenken, sich an dieser Stelle über die Überlieferung hinwegzusetzen und für χρήματα πάντα die seit Platon häufig vorkommende Wortfolge πάντα χρήματα in den Text aufzunehmen, die im Übrigen auch in den Kurzzitaten bei Simplikios die Regel ist. Dennoch ist nicht daran zu zweifeln, dass der Anfang der Schrift des Anaxagoras gerade in 155, 26 richtig wiedergegeben ist.

Denn nur hier im Physik-Kommentar zitiert Simplikios nachweislich unmittelbar aus seinem Anaxagoras-Text, den er für die übrigen Zitate ihrer Kürze wegen nicht eigens einsah. Dass er in diesen Fällen die geläufige, freilich unkorrekte Wortfolge übernahm, kann nicht verwundern, zumal sie auch in der von ihm kommentierten Schrift des Aristoteles erschien.

Diese Auswertung der Zitate von Fragment 1 im Physik-Kommentar des Simplikios wird dadurch gesichert, dass in einer anderen Abhandlung desselben Autors, im Kommentar zu Aristoteles' De caelo (608, 21), ein zweites Mal der Anfang der Schrift Περί φύσεως in der Version ὁμοῦ χρήματα πάντα ἦν zitiert wird. Entscheidend ist, dass es sich auch in diesem Fall um ein so langes Zitat handelt (bis σμικρότης), dass Simplikios dafür eigens im Anaxagoras-Text nachschlagen musste. [the entire text]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"774","_score":null,"_source":{"id":774,"authors_free":[{"id":1138,"entry_id":774,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":383,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"R\u00f6sler, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"R\u00f6sler","norm_person":{"id":383,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"R\u00f6sler","full_name":"R\u00f6sler, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133199266","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u039f\u039c\u039f\u03a5 \u03a7\u03a1\u0397\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u03a0\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u0397\u039d","main_title":{"title":"\u039f\u039c\u039f\u03a5 \u03a7\u03a1\u0397\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u03a0\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u0397\u039d"},"abstract":"Wie alle umfangreicheren Fragmente der Abhandlung \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 des Anaxagoras ist auch Fragment 1 (VS 59 B 1) durch den Kommentar des Simplikios zur aristotelischen Physik \u00fcberliefert. Simplikios hatte die M\u00f6glichkeit, ein Exemplar der Schrift des ionischen Philosophen zu benutzen. In seiner ganzen L\u00e4nge erscheint das Fragment, dessen Stellung am Anfang des Buches ausdr\u00fccklich bezeugt ist, nur einmal (155, 26); daneben gibt es weitere Passagen, in denen lediglich der einleitende Satz bzw. dessen Beginn zitiert wird.\r\n\r\nEin \u00dcberblick zeigt, dass zwischen den einzelnen Zitaten Unterschiede in der Wortstellung bestehen. Deshalb soll im Folgenden der Versuch unternommen werden, die urspr\u00fcngliche Anordnung in der Textvorlage des Simplikios zu rekonstruieren.\r\n\r\nBekanntlich wird der Anfang der Schrift des Anaxagoras seit Platon in der griechischen Literatur h\u00e4ufig zitiert. Untersucht man jedoch die entsprechenden Stellen \u2013 mit Ausnahme derer bei Simplikios \u2013 auf ihren Wert als Zeugen f\u00fcr den genauen Wortlaut des Anaxagoras-Textes, so zeigt sich ihre Bedeutungslosigkeit rasch. Platon und Aristoteles zitieren nicht direkt aus dem Buch des Anaxagoras, was auch ihrer sonst ge\u00fcbten Praxis bei der Wiedergabe fremder Meinungen widerspr\u00e4che, sondern paraphrasieren frei nach dem Ged\u00e4chtnis.\r\n\r\nDie beiden Zitate bei Platon bieten zwar eine einheitliche Wortstellung (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1), doch fehlt jeweils \u1f26\u03bd. In einem Fall (Gorg. 465d) sind die Worte des Anaxagoras sogar v\u00f6llig in die betreffende Satzkonstruktion eingegangen. Letzteres trifft auch auf viele der Zitate bei Aristoteles zu, die im \u00dcbrigen Unterschiede in der Wortfolge zeigen und h\u00e4ufig unvollst\u00e4ndig sind. Wie bei Platon umfassen auch die Zitate bei Aristoteles lediglich den unmittelbaren Beginn des Einleitungssatzes. Nur einmal (Met. 1056b 29) erscheint auch der folgende Satzabschnitt (bis \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, wobei diese beiden Substantive bei Aristoteles allerdings im Dativ stehen). Auch dieses Zitat besteht jedoch nur aus insgesamt neun W\u00f6rtern und konnte daher leicht aus dem Ged\u00e4chtnis niedergeschrieben werden.\r\n\r\nNoch geringeren Quellenwert haben die Zitate bei sp\u00e4teren Autoren, da diese ihre Kenntnis Platon, Aristoteles oder einer ihrerseits aus zweiter Hand sch\u00f6pfenden doxographischen Vorlage verdankten oder die Einleitungsworte des Anaxagoras, die im Laufe der Zeit regelrecht zur \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 wurden, \u00fcberhaupt nur vom H\u00f6rensagen kannten. In der Wortstellung treten fast alle denkbaren Variationen auf, kein Zitat reicht \u00fcber den unmittelbaren Anfang der Schrift \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 hinaus.\r\n\r\nAls Grundlage der Rekonstruktion bleiben somit nur die Passagen bei Simplikios. Wie eingangs bemerkt, wird Fragment 1 im Physik-Kommentar nur an einer Stelle (155, 26) in seiner Gesamtheit zitiert, w\u00e4hrend die \u00fcbrigen Zitate nur den Anfang wiedergeben; im g\u00fcnstigsten Fall reichen sie (wie schon bei Aristoteles) bis \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. Nun bietet 155, 26 eine Wortstellung, die nur bei Simplikios und im Physik-Kommentar nur hier begegnet, n\u00e4mlich \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd.\r\n\r\nAngesichts der Isoliertheit dieser Version trugen H. Diels und W. Kranz, die Herausgeber der Vorsokratiker-Fragmente, keine Bedenken, sich an dieser Stelle \u00fcber die \u00dcberlieferung hinwegzusetzen und f\u00fcr \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 die seit Platon h\u00e4ufig vorkommende Wortfolge \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 in den Text aufzunehmen, die im \u00dcbrigen auch in den Kurzzitaten bei Simplikios die Regel ist. Dennoch ist nicht daran zu zweifeln, dass der Anfang der Schrift des Anaxagoras gerade in 155, 26 richtig wiedergegeben ist.\r\n\r\nDenn nur hier im Physik-Kommentar zitiert Simplikios nachweislich unmittelbar aus seinem Anaxagoras-Text, den er f\u00fcr die \u00fcbrigen Zitate ihrer K\u00fcrze wegen nicht eigens einsah. Dass er in diesen F\u00e4llen die gel\u00e4ufige, freilich unkorrekte Wortfolge \u00fcbernahm, kann nicht verwundern, zumal sie auch in der von ihm kommentierten Schrift des Aristoteles erschien.\r\n\r\nDiese Auswertung der Zitate von Fragment 1 im Physik-Kommentar des Simplikios wird dadurch gesichert, dass in einer anderen Abhandlung desselben Autors, im Kommentar zu Aristoteles' De caelo (608, 21), ein zweites Mal der Anfang der Schrift \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 in der Version \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd zitiert wird. Entscheidend ist, dass es sich auch in diesem Fall um ein so langes Zitat handelt (bis \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), dass Simplikios daf\u00fcr eigens im Anaxagoras-Text nachschlagen musste. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1971","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JNAa63ZtXiLxTdb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":383,"full_name":"R\u00f6sler, Wolfgang","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":774,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"99","issue":"2","pages":"246-248"}},"sort":["\u039f\u039c\u039f\u03a5 \u03a7\u03a1\u0397\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u0391 \u03a0\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391 \u0397\u039d"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1