{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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 quality or principal cause exists in its sub- \r\nstratum by fate. \"Virtue benefits,\" therefore, is a necessary proposition \r\nbecause the predicate is derived from the principal cause inherent by \r\nfate in the subject. In order that I may show more easily the relation- \r\nship among the various terms in this diaeresis, I would like to substitute \r\nfor \"Virtue benefits\" a necessary proposition related to the term \r\n\"lives.\" [p. 280]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hk61NJLPYwSqT37","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]}

{"_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":[1972]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/ZmTTpk12fUJCyWj","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]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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 \r\nthrough which in the last thirty years several scholars have ad- \r\nvanced our understanding of the evidence for Zeno of Elea and \r\nin particular of the verbatim preserved fragments. In fact my in- \r\ntention is not to replace theories by other theories but to create \r\ndoubt about matters that for some time have been taken for granted \r\nand to change confident assumptions into hypotheses that would \r\ntolerate others besides them. [p. 116]","btype":3,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x10aAvObhnTaTON","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]}