{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/i27gyBgOk88OE3n","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\""]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/lBKy8DcHoAeCp8g","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"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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. [p. 173]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XojOQqYJNOQXpHg","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"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle\u2019s successors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in particular the discussion in the De anima. about 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, 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.]\r\nSource: https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MADsskDf9a78Egx\r\n\u2022\tBossier, Fernand and Carlos Steel, 1972, \u201cPriscianus Lydus en de \u2018In de Anima\u2019 van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius\u201d, Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie, 34(4): 761\u2013822.\r\nAbstract: 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 \u00e9t\u00e9 en effet frapp\u00e9s par les divergences de style et de langue, ainsi que par la mani\u00e8re diff\u00e9rente de commenter. \r\nDans la premi\u00e8re partie, nous d\u00e9montrons que l'auteur du In De Anima a \u00e9crit \u00e9galement la Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, qui nous a \u00e9t\u00e9 transmise sous le nom de Priscien le Lydien. Dans le In De Anima, 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. - 2\u00b0 Une comparaison d\u00e9taill\u00e9e, qui porte sur l'ensemble des deux \u0153uvres, nous r\u00e9v\u00e8le une telle ressemblance de style et de pens\u00e9e - il y a m\u00eame des phrases \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s identiques - qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer que par l'hypoth\u00e8se de l'identit\u00e9 de l'auteur.\r\nDans la deuxi\u00e8me partie, nous essayons d'identifier l'auteur de ces deux \u0153uvres qui nous ont pourtant \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 du In De Anima, notamment par la confrontation avec les commentaires de Simplicius, dont l'attribution est certaine, que la question pourra \u00eatre tranch\u00e9e.\r\nDans le In De Anima, 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. - 2\u00b0 Dans le In De Anima, on ne retrouve pas les traits caract\u00e9ristiques de la m\u00e9thode de commenter 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. - 3\u00b0 La diff\u00e9rence doctrinale est encore plus importante. Nulle part chez Simplicius n'appara\u00eet la th\u00e9orie de l'\u00e2me comme \"\u00e9manation\", qui est si fondamentale dans le In De Anima (\"\u00e9manation\" y est un concept-cl\u00e9). Les rares digressions du In De Anima \u00e0 propos de questions physiques et logiques ne correspondent pas aux expos\u00e9s de Simplicius sur les m\u00eames probl\u00e8mes. Ainsi, 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 le In De Anima et les autres commentaires qu'elle ne peut s'expliquer par une \u00e9volution chez Simplicius lui-m\u00eame. Le In De Anima 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 Perse.\r\n[author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ufNuMRxWJbAzWRP","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"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"On the whole one may say of this collection that \r\nit has given S. much of his due as a major commentator on, and preserver of, earlier Greek \r\nphilosophy, and as such it is warmly to be \r\nwelcomed, but it is notable that in only three \r\npapers, those of Blumenthal (who may after all be \r\ntalking about Priscian), Luna, and Sorabji, is any distinctive doctrine of S.'s being discussed. But \r\nperhaps this is reasonable: after all, S. is not a man \r\nof great originality, nor does he claim to be (most even of what seems distinctive probably goes back \r\nto Iamblichus or Syrianus\/Proclus); yet it may at \r\nsome time be possible to produce a slim volume \r\ndevoted primarily to his doctrinal innovations. [p. 245]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HrMeGMXbGiihHL4","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"]}