| 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. [p. 173] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XojOQqYJNOQXpHg |
{"_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":[1977]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WEuuGEi4LFtExM8 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/WEuuGEi4LFtExM8","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]}
| 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) |
| This article discusses a textual note in Lucretius I.744:1 that was recovered by Bailey and Maas, which replaces "ignem" with "imbrem". The author explores the reasoning behind this change, pointing out that Lucretius' use of "aera solem ignem terras animalia fruges" differs from Empedocles' use of four elements. The article also discusses various emendations of the text, including Christ's emendation of "solem" to "rorem" to create a world of air, dew, fire, and earth. The article ultimately argues for the importance of accurately understanding the original text and its relation to Empedocles' ideas. [whole text] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JZk2s8OnrbRTm2s |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"This article discusses a textual note in Lucretius I.744:1 that was recovered by Bailey and Maas, which replaces \"ignem\" with \"imbrem\". The author explores the reasoning behind this change, pointing out that Lucretius' use of \"aera solem ignem terras animalia fruges\" differs from Empedocles' use of four elements. The article also discusses various emendations of the text, including Christ's emendation of \"solem\" to \"rorem\" to create a world of air, dew, fire, and earth. The article ultimately argues for the importance of accurately understanding the original text and its relation to Empedocles' ideas. [whole text]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JZk2s8OnrbRTm2s","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]}
| 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) |
| This text discusses the Aldine edition of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, published in 1526. The author explains the meticulous process followed by Alde Manuce and his collaborators to prepare and compare various manuscripts of classical texts before printing them. The text also discusses the continuity of quality in Aldine editions after the death of Alde, and identifies Francesco d'Asola as the editor responsible for the 1526 edition of Simplicius. While d'Asola's conjectures are criticized as being "too bold," the author notes that there is a possibility he may have had access to the original source material. Overall, the article provides insight into the printing and publishing practices of the Aldine press during the Renaissance. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TutXOqoXMRgshj8 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"This text discusses the Aldine edition of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, published in 1526. The author explains the meticulous process followed by Alde Manuce and his collaborators to prepare and compare various manuscripts of classical texts before printing them. The text also discusses the continuity of quality in Aldine editions after the death of Alde, and identifies Francesco d'Asola as the editor responsible for the 1526 edition of Simplicius. While d'Asola's conjectures are criticized as being \"too bold,\" the author notes that there is a possibility he may have had access to the original source material. Overall, the article provides insight into the printing and publishing practices of the Aldine press during the Renaissance. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TutXOqoXMRgshj8","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]}
| 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.2 Not infrequently they are disappointed and complain about the irrelevance of the commentary they read, or inveigh against the incompetence of the commentators.3 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. [p. 64] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/7wpRahl6Ref0nE0 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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 \r\nunderstanding of difficult Aristotelian texts seem to expect \r\nstraightforward scholarly treatment of their problems.2 Not \r\ninfrequently they are disappointed and complain about the irrelevance \r\nof the commentary they read, or inveigh against the incompetence of \r\nthe commentators.3 Only Alexander is generally exempt from such \r\ncensure, and that in itself is significant. For he is the only major \r\ncommentator whose work survives in any considerable quantity who \r\nwrote before Neoplatonism. Shortly after Alexander the kind of thought \r\nthat is conveniently described by this label came to dominate Greek \r\nphilosophy, and nearly all pagan philosophy and philosophical \r\nscholarship was pursued under its influence, if not by its active \r\nadherents. It is the purpose of this paper to argue that these facts are \r\nnot trivial items of background interest, but are fundamental to a \r\nproper assessment of the later commentators' opinions on points of \r\nAristotelian scholarship. [p. 64]","btype":3,"date":"1976","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7wpRahl6Ref0nE0","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]}
| 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 |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gNkGl0b57tMtg3l |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/gNkGl0b57tMtg3l","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]}
| 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) |
| t is not my aim in this paper to decide between the opinions of JAEGER and LANZA. I want rather to try to settle a prior question posed by JAEGER'S argument in the extract from his Gifford Lectures printed above. He appeals principally to two texts in advancing his view of Anaxagoras's 'methodical point of departure': a scholium on Gregory of Nazianzus (DK 59 B io) and a bit of Simplicius's commentary on the Physics. Do these texts provide reliable evidence for an interest in nutrition and growth on Anaxagoras's part and for the decisive role of his thinking on these matters in his general theory of matter which JAEGER discerns ? [pp. 1 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dLHRzAyIMmQudTY |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"t is not my aim in this paper to decide between the opinions of JAEGER \r\nand LANZA. I want rather to try to settle a prior question posed by JAEGER'S \r\nargument in the extract from his Gifford Lectures printed above. He appeals \r\nprincipally to two texts in advancing his view of Anaxagoras's 'methodical \r\npoint of departure': a scholium on Gregory of Nazianzus (DK 59 B io) and a \r\nbit of Simplicius's commentary on the Physics. Do these texts provide reliable evidence for an interest in nutrition and growth on Anaxagoras's part and for \r\nthe decisive role of his thinking on these matters in his general theory of \r\nmatter which JAEGER discerns ? [pp. 1 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1975","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dLHRzAyIMmQudTY","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]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lVHeUz4fhZTWu9Y |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/lVHeUz4fhZTWu9Y","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]}
| 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 |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6y3qYNUivIzXyg5 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/6y3qYNUivIzXyg5","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]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/n1LEt2gjjaymDaT |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/n1LEt2gjjaymDaT","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]}
| 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) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VoGnjTqq2bjIKOf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VoGnjTqq2bjIKOf","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"]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Z8BxzthuWnQ0Umq |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/Z8BxzthuWnQ0Umq","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"]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vvwgLpKk4pQTpHp |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/vvwgLpKk4pQTpHp","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"]}
| 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) |
The Alexandrian commentator of the sixth century A. D., John Philoponus, is arguably the most interesting of Aristotle's Greek exegetes. He is not the most orthodox, since his commentaries are variously infused with ideas drawn from neoplatonism, and from Christian philosophy.1 But he more than compensates for exegetical infidelity by his originality in challenging and enlarging Aristotelianism, particularly in the area of physical theory. This achievement is well understood thanks to recent studies by Sambursky, Wieland, and Wolff, that have dealt with such topics as his theory of light, his concept of mass, his dynamics, his theory of space, and his polemic against the Aristotelian belief in the eternity of the universe.2 In the present paper I shall discuss other ideas from the same general area that are perhaps less strikingly original, but that nonetheless illustrate well Philoponus' method of working within the confines of Aristotelian exegesis, whilst injecting his own philoso phical assumptions. [p. 151] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/p7CzPV8ZEV2uRso |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"The Alexandrian commentator of the sixth century A. D., John Philoponus, \r\nis arguably the most interesting of Aristotle's Greek exegetes. He is not the \r\nmost orthodox, since his commentaries are variously infused with ideas drawn \r\nfrom neoplatonism, and from Christian philosophy.1 But he more than \r\ncompensates for exegetical infidelity by his originality in challenging and \r\nenlarging Aristotelianism, particularly in the area of physical theory. This \r\nachievement is well understood thanks to recent studies by Sambursky, \r\nWieland, and Wolff, that have dealt with such topics as his theory of light, his \r\nconcept of mass, his dynamics, his theory of space, and his polemic against the \r\nAristotelian belief in the eternity of the universe.2 In the present paper I shall \r\ndiscuss other ideas from the same general area that are perhaps less strikingly \r\noriginal, but that nonetheless illustrate well Philoponus' method of working \r\nwithin the confines of Aristotelian exegesis, whilst injecting his own philoso \r\nphical assumptions. [p. 151]","btype":3,"date":"1980","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/p7CzPV8ZEV2uRso","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"]}
| 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) |
n I904 E. HAMBRUCH2 tried to show that sometimes Aristotle himself uses synonymna in the Speusippean sense [...] 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 3; and, though some doubts about its soundness were expressed from different points of view4, it was only in I97I that Mr. Jonathan BARNES5 made a systematic assault on it. He contends, in the first place, that Speusippus's conception of homonyma and synonyma is essentially the same as that of Aristotle, the slight differences between their respective definitions of each being trivial, and, secondly, that even though in a few places Aristotle does use homonyma and synonyma as properties of linguistic terms, this is due to the fact that Aristotle's use of these words is not as rigid as the Categories would lead one to believe; he could not have been influenced by Speusippus because the latter conceived homonymy and synonymy as properties of things and, in any case, if influence of one on the other be assumed, it could as well have been Aristotle that influenced Speusippus. Though I believe that his two main contentions are mistaken, I am here mainly concerned with the first part of BARNES' thesis; for, 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 did influence Aristotle when the latter uses synonymon as a property of names would be wrong, even though BARNES himself were mistaken in his analysis of the Aristotelian passages he reviews in the second part of his paper. [pp. 73 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vll1Z7jifmlOH0h |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"n I904 E. HAMBRUCH2 tried to show that sometimes Aristotle himself \r\nuses synonymna in the Speusippean sense [...] and that in so doing he was influenced by Speusippus. This thesis of HAMBRUCH has been accepted \r\nby several scholars, including LANG, STENZEL, and CHERNISS 3; and, though \r\nsome doubts about its soundness were expressed from different points of view4, \r\nit was only in I97I that Mr. Jonathan BARNES5 made a systematic assault \r\non it. He contends, in the first place, that Speusippus's conception of homonyma \r\nand synonyma is essentially the same as that of Aristotle, the slight differences \r\nbetween their respective definitions of each being trivial, and, secondly, that \r\neven though in a few places Aristotle does use homonyma and synonyma as \r\nproperties of linguistic terms, this is due to the fact that Aristotle's use of these \r\nwords is not as rigid as the Categories would lead one to believe; he could not \r\nhave been influenced by Speusippus because the latter conceived homonymy \r\nand synonymy as properties of things and, in any case, if influence of one on \r\nthe other be assumed, it could as well have been Aristotle that influenced \r\nSpeusippus. \r\nThough I believe that his two main contentions are mistaken, I am here \r\nmainly concerned with the first part of BARNES' thesis; for, if he were right \r\nin believing that for Speusippus homonyma and synonyma are properties of \r\nthings and not of names or linguistic terms, then HAMBRUCH'S notion that \r\nSpeusippus did influence Aristotle when the latter uses synonymon as a property \r\nof names would be wrong, even though BARNES himself were mistaken in his \r\nanalysis of the Aristotelian passages he reviews in the second part of his paper. [pp. 73 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vll1Z7jifmlOH0h","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"]}
| 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) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hOpjaWHtUiu9Hk9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"","btype":3,"date":"1988","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hOpjaWHtUiu9Hk9","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"]}
| 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) |
Discussion of Xenophanes' teaching with texts of Aristotle, Ps.-Plutarch, Simplicius, Theophrastus. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/P4ntkCF3J6g1jAI |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"Discussion of Xenophanes' teaching with texts of Aristotle, Ps.-Plutarch, Simplicius, Theophrastus.","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/P4ntkCF3J6g1jAI","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"]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ACI5Tk5oRBRvxWG |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/ACI5Tk5oRBRvxWG","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"]}
| 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 Pepin 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.2 The only other evidence for its exis- tence is a passage of Simplicius3 that tells us that at the end of On Prayer Aristotle says clearly that God is either mind or somehow beyond mind (6 Esoq ii voUq EaTiV Ti CrenCKEva TOU voU). The claim that God is be- yond 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 philosophi- cal harmony of Aristotle and Plato. Our problem, therefore, is to see why Simplicius thought that Aristotle held this view... [pp. 110 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6lThLMu5Mp64X1o |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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 Pepin recently devoted a lengthy study to Aristotle's On \r\nPrayer;' there is good reason to think that the work never existed. On \r\nPrayer is listed in Diogenes Laertius' catalogue of Aristotle's writings (5.22) and in the Vita Hesychii.2 The only other evidence for its exis- \r\ntence is a passage of Simplicius3 that tells us that at the end of On Prayer Aristotle says clearly that God is either mind or somehow beyond mind \r\n(6 Esoq ii voUq EaTiV Ti CrenCKEva TOU voU). The claim that God is be- \r\nyond mind is unique in an unemended Aristotelian text, but the notion \r\nwould be acceptable to Simplicius both because, as a Neoplatonist, he \r\nwould believe it to be true, and because as a Neoplatonic commentator \r\non Aristotle he would be happy to find evidence of the basic philosophi- cal harmony of Aristotle and Plato. Our problem, therefore, is to see \r\nwhy Simplicius thought that Aristotle held this view... [pp. 110 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lThLMu5Mp64X1o","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"]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aBW4ltQsoGBiCRv |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/aBW4ltQsoGBiCRv","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"]}