Author 81
Les catégories aristotéliciennes ΠΟΤE et ΠΟΥ d’après le commentaire de Simplicius. Méthode d’exégèse et aspects doctrinaux, 2000
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile (Ed.)
Title Les catégories aristotéliciennes ΠΟΤE et ΠΟΥ d’après le commentaire de Simplicius. Méthode d’exégèse et aspects doctrinaux
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 2000
Published in Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999
Pages 355-376
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile
Translator(s)
Simplicius aligns himself fundamentally with Porphyry and Jamblichus, preserving the tradition of responding to Plotinus’s aporias on the Categories. He also reveals trends in the Peripatetic commentaries that Plotinus was reacting to. Simplicius demonstrates the specificity of the categories ΠΟΤE and ΠΟΥ, using Jamblichus's definition of neo-Platonic skopos, which relies on a unity of meaning to establish the unity of a category corresponding to the unity of a genus. Despite being influenced by Jamblichus, Simplicius ultimately follows a philosophical orientation that aligns him with his master Damascius. [conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"679","_score":null,"_source":{"id":679,"authors_free":[{"id":1002,"entry_id":679,"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":1003,"entry_id":679,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}}],"entry_title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E et \u03a0\u039f\u03a5 d\u2019apr\u00e8s le commentaire de Simplicius. M\u00e9thode d\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et aspects doctrinaux","main_title":{"title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E et \u03a0\u039f\u03a5 d\u2019apr\u00e8s le commentaire de Simplicius. M\u00e9thode d\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et aspects doctrinaux"},"abstract":"Simplicius aligns himself fundamentally with Porphyry and Jamblichus, preserving the tradition of responding to Plotinus\u2019s aporias on the Categories. He also reveals trends in the Peripatetic commentaries that Plotinus was reacting to. Simplicius demonstrates the specificity of the categories \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E and \u03a0\u039f\u03a5, using Jamblichus's definition of neo-Platonic skopos, which relies on a unity of meaning to establish the unity of a category corresponding to the unity of a genus. Despite being influenced by Jamblichus, Simplicius ultimately follows a philosophical orientation that aligns him with his master Damascius. [conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tGxagcX1ONlDUSI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":679,"section_of":269,"pages":"355-376","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":269,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet-Caz\u00e92000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"Une bonne partie de la litterature universelle est une litterature de commentaire. Cette constatation s'applique particulierement a la litterature antique et medievale, fortement ancree dans la tradition grace aux institutions scolaires. Situes en fait au croisement de la tradition et de l'innovation, les textes exegetiques s'attachent d'abod a comprendre et a expliquer la pensee des maitres qui font autorite, mais souvent ils essaient aussi de la depasser, si bien que la demarche du commentaire peut aller de l'exegese la plus litterale a l'interpretation la plus allegorisante, de l'explication la plus traditionnelle au commentaire le plus neuf. L'objectif de ce recueil est de cerner sous tous ses aspects, dans toutes ses composantes et toutes ses problematiques, la realite du commentaire depuis sa fabrication materielle jusqu'a l'elabotration de ses contenus speculatifs, dans des aires culturelles multiples: mondes grec, latin, hebraique, arabe indien et a des epoques differentes: hellenistique, Empire romain, Moyen Age et Renaissance. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RdY8RrIpT0hwHi3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":269,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2000]}

La triade chaldaïque ἔρως, ἀλήθεια, πίστις: De Proclus à Simplicius, 2000
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Segonds, A. Ph. (Ed.), Steel, Carlos (Ed.), Mettraux, A. F. (Coll.) (Ed.), Luna, Concetta (Coll.) (Ed.)
Title La triade chaldaïque ἔρως, ἀλήθεια, πίστις: De Proclus à Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 2000
Published in Proclus et la théologie platonicienne. Actes du colloque international de Louvain (13 -16 mai 1998). En l'honneur de H.D. Saffrey et L.G. Westerink
Pages 459-489
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Segonds, A. Ph. , Steel, Carlos , Mettraux, A. F. (Coll.) , Luna, Concetta (Coll.)
Translator(s)
L'analyse des textes montre que dans l’œuvre de Simplicius s'établit une correspondance ferme entre le prologue de son Commentaire à la Physique et la prière finale du Commentaire au De caelo. Selon l’ordre néoplatonicien de lecture des traités d'Aristote, la Physique précède le De caelo. Ne peut-on, dans ces conditions, et malgré un ordre chronologique de composition in­verse, expliquer par une raison de fond - c'est-à-dire par une sorte de continuité intentionnelle entre les deux ouvrages - l’absence d’une prière à la fin du Commentaire à la Physique, en considérant que la prière finale de l'In De caelo couronne à la fois ces deux commentaires, puisque l'un comme l'autre instruisent une polémique contre l'impiété de Jean Philopon, et font remonter l'exégète - et avec lui ses lecteurs - jusqu’à une forme d'union avec le corps céleste et avec le Démiurge, c’est-à-dire jusqu'à une « sympathie » donatrice de félicité? Ainsi se trouve atteint le telos évoqué dans le prologue du Commentaire aux Catégories, tandis qu'un fil thématique précis unit les trois Commentaires de Simplicius sur Aristote. [conclusion, p. 489]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"681","_score":null,"_source":{"id":681,"authors_free":[{"id":1009,"entry_id":681,"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":1010,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":196,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Segonds, A. Ph.","free_first_name":"A. Ph. ","free_last_name":"Segonds","norm_person":{"id":196,"first_name":"A. Ph. ","last_name":"Segonds","full_name":"Segonds, A. Ph.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031742743","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2039,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":2395,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":461,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mettraux, A. F. (Coll.)","free_first_name":"A. F.","free_last_name":"Mettraux","norm_person":{"id":461,"first_name":"A. F.","last_name":"Mettraux","full_name":"Mettraux, A. F. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2396,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":458,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Luna, Concetta (Coll.)","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}}],"entry_title":"La triade chalda\u00efque \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2: De Proclus \u00e0 Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La triade chalda\u00efque \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2: De Proclus \u00e0 Simplicius"},"abstract":"L'analyse des textes montre que dans l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius s'\u00e9tablit une correspondance ferme entre le prologue de son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique et la pri\u00e8re finale du Commentaire au \r\nDe caelo. Selon l\u2019ordre n\u00e9oplatonicien de lecture des trait\u00e9s d'Aristote, la Physique pr\u00e9c\u00e8de le De caelo. Ne peut-on, dans ces conditions, et malgr\u00e9 un ordre chronologique de composition in\u00adverse, expliquer par une raison de fond - c'est-\u00e0-dire par une sorte de continuit\u00e9 intentionnelle entre les deux ouvrages - \r\nl\u2019absence d\u2019une pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin du Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique, en consid\u00e9rant que la pri\u00e8re finale de l'In De caelo couronne \u00e0 la fois \r\nces deux commentaires, puisque l'un comme l'autre instruisent une pol\u00e9mique contre l'impi\u00e9t\u00e9 de Jean Philopon, et font remonter l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8te - et avec lui ses lecteurs - jusqu\u2019\u00e0 une forme d'union avec le corps c\u00e9leste et avec le D\u00e9miurge, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire jusqu'\u00e0 une \r\n\u00ab sympathie \u00bb donatrice de f\u00e9licit\u00e9? Ainsi se trouve atteint le telos \u00e9voqu\u00e9 dans le prologue du Commentaire aux Cat\u00e9gories, tandis qu'un fil th\u00e9matique pr\u00e9cis unit les trois Commentaires de Simplicius sur Aristote. [conclusion, p. 489]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Z6GulpIldCyTgq3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":196,"full_name":"Segonds, A. Ph.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":461,"full_name":"Mettraux, A. F. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":458,"full_name":"Luna, Concetta","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":681,"section_of":369,"pages":"459-489","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":369,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Proclus et la th\u00e9ologie platonicienne. Actes du colloque international de Louvain (13 -16 mai 1998). En l'honneur de H.D. Saffrey et L.G. Westerink","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Segonds2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"In his Platonic Theology, Proclus offers a systematic exposition of the theology of Plato. Integrating within the \u2018scienti-fic\u2019 framework of the Parmenides all the theological doctrines which are scattered throughout the Plato\u2019s dialogues, Proclus develops the Platonic doctrines on the One, the gods and the hierarchical procession of reality.\r\n\r\nThe present volume, which celebrates the completion of the critical edition of Proclus\u2019 Platonic Theology by H.-D. Saffrey and L.G. Westerink (+), contains thirty-one contributions by leading scholars in the field of Neoplatonic studies. They present their views on the organisation and principles of Proclus\u2019 theology, on the hermeneutics of Platonic dialogues, on the antecedents of this theological synthesis, and on its posterity, from Proclus\u2019 immediate successors through the Byzantine, Arabic and Latin Middle Ages.\r\n\r\nThis monumental volume, which is the result of three decades of dedicated scholarly research on the philosophy of Proclus, will stand for many years as an indispensable guide for all those interested in Neoplatonic studies. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SbKzMkxqkUtsN6U","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":369,"pubplace":"Leuven - Paris","publisher":"Leuven University Press - Paris Les Belles Lettres","series":"Ancient and medieval philosophy, Series 1","volume":"26","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2000]}

Bibliothèques et formes du livre a la fin de l’antiquité. Le témoignage de la littérature néoplatonicienne des Ve et VIe siècles, 2000
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Prato, Giancarlo (Ed.)
Title Bibliothèques et formes du livre a la fin de l’antiquité. Le témoignage de la littérature néoplatonicienne des Ve et VIe siècles
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 2000
Published in I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Paleografia Greca (Cremona, 4-10 ottobre 1998), Tomo 2
Pages 601-632
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Prato, Giancarlo
Translator(s)
Quels sont donc les maigres résultats de notre enquête ? On déduit d’un cursus d’études tardo-antique des Ve et VIe siècles la nécessaire existence de riches bibliothèques dont l’histoire ultérieure n’est qu’un tissu d’hypothèses ou de questions nécessaires, et le chemin est long jusqu’à la copie des volumes platoniciens de la Collection philosophique au IXe siècle. Les livres utilisés, conservés ou réalisés dans ces milieux néoplatoniciens devaient probablement – pour les œuvres les plus prolixes du moins – être de ces codices de grand format, et aux vastes marges, évoqués par Monsieur Crisci pour une période il est vrai postérieure de plusieurs décennies. On a pu mettre en relation le chapitre 27 de la Vie de Proclus avec le célèbre codex de papyrus de Callimaque (P.Oxy. XX 2258), écrit en majuscule alexandrine. Ce codex, décrit en 1959 par Jean Irigoin et en 1971 par sir Eric Turner, est de dimensions stupéfiantes. Il est daté en général du VIe ou du VIIe siècle, et Turner, après Edgar Lobel, le situe plutôt vers 500 ou 600 que vers 700. C’est le meilleur exemple connu, pour cette époque, d’un type de mise en pages comportant un texte et son commentaire. (On lui ajoutera – me suggère Jean Irigoin – l’exemple des citations marginales de Galien et de Cratévas lisibles dans le Dioscoride de Vienne, et qui nous instruisent sur le processus de formation d’une chaîne, un autre exemple postérieur étant le Venetus A de l’Iliade, Marc. gr. 454). La mise en pages attestée dans le Callimaque se retrouvera, peu après 900, dans le Vat. Urb. gr. 35 (Organon d’Aristote), dont les marges comportent, pour l’Isagogè de Porphyre et le début des Catégories, une compilation de la littérature exégétique alexandrine et athénienne (on y trouve du Simplicius), enrichie çà et là de nouveautés postérieures au VIe siècle. Le module de l’écriture adopté par Aréthas pour transcrire les commentaires dans les marges de l’Urb. gr. 35 permet de saisir une pratique de la micrographie, également illustrée (et de manière extrême) dans un autre contexte et à une tout autre époque, par le codex Mani de Cologne. Plus que le module des commentaires marginaux du Callimaque, les modules infimes du manuscrit d’Aristote comme du codex Mani nous mettent peut-être sur la voie du type d’écriture utilisé pour la copie des œuvres immenses d’un Proclus, d’un Damascius ou d’un Simplicius. On peut imaginer que les livres de l’école néoplatonicienne prenaient volontiers la forme des codices de grand format déjà évoqués, et dont l’usage est attesté pour des textes profanes ou classiques. S’ils contenaient un texte des auctoritates, de vastes marges pouvaient accueillir des commentaires de l’école (c’est le cas des commentaires de Proclus sur Hésiode et sur Orphée). S’ils contenaient une œuvre exégétique « moderne » (de Proclus ou de Simplicius), la pratique d’écritures de petit module ne pouvait-elle permettre de maintenir dans des limites spatiales maniables des textes correspondant à des centaines de pages dans les éditions modernes ? Mais ce n’est là, bien sûr, qu’une suggestion, ou plutôt une ultime question. [conclusion p. 630-632]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"711","_score":null,"_source":{"id":711,"authors_free":[{"id":1060,"entry_id":711,"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":1061,"entry_id":711,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":195,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prato, Giancarlo","free_first_name":"Giancarlo","free_last_name":"Prato","norm_person":{"id":195,"first_name":"Giancarlo","last_name":"Prato","full_name":"Prato, Giancarlo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143872176","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Biblioth\u00e8ques et formes du livre a la fin de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9. Le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles","main_title":{"title":"Biblioth\u00e8ques et formes du livre a la fin de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9. Le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles"},"abstract":"Quels sont donc les maigres r\u00e9sultats de notre enqu\u00eate ? On d\u00e9duit d\u2019un cursus d\u2019\u00e9tudes tardo-antique des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles la n\u00e9cessaire existence de riches biblioth\u00e8ques dont l\u2019histoire ult\u00e9rieure n\u2019est qu\u2019un tissu d\u2019hypoth\u00e8ses ou de questions n\u00e9cessaires, et le chemin est long jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la copie des volumes platoniciens de la Collection philosophique au IXe si\u00e8cle. Les livres utilis\u00e9s, conserv\u00e9s ou r\u00e9alis\u00e9s dans ces milieux n\u00e9oplatoniciens devaient probablement \u2013 pour les \u0153uvres les plus prolixes du moins \u2013 \u00eatre de ces codices de grand format, et aux vastes marges, \u00e9voqu\u00e9s par Monsieur Crisci pour une p\u00e9riode il est vrai post\u00e9rieure de plusieurs d\u00e9cennies.\r\n\r\nOn a pu mettre en relation le chapitre 27 de la Vie de Proclus avec le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre codex de papyrus de Callimaque (P.Oxy. XX 2258), \u00e9crit en majuscule alexandrine. Ce codex, d\u00e9crit en 1959 par Jean Irigoin et en 1971 par sir Eric Turner, est de dimensions stup\u00e9fiantes. Il est dat\u00e9 en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du VIe ou du VIIe si\u00e8cle, et Turner, apr\u00e8s Edgar Lobel, le situe plut\u00f4t vers 500 ou 600 que vers 700. C\u2019est le meilleur exemple connu, pour cette \u00e9poque, d\u2019un type de mise en pages comportant un texte et son commentaire. (On lui ajoutera \u2013 me sugg\u00e8re Jean Irigoin \u2013 l\u2019exemple des citations marginales de Galien et de Crat\u00e9vas lisibles dans le Dioscoride de Vienne, et qui nous instruisent sur le processus de formation d\u2019une cha\u00eene, un autre exemple post\u00e9rieur \u00e9tant le Venetus A de l\u2019Iliade, Marc. gr. 454).\r\n\r\nLa mise en pages attest\u00e9e dans le Callimaque se retrouvera, peu apr\u00e8s 900, dans le Vat. Urb. gr. 35 (Organon d\u2019Aristote), dont les marges comportent, pour l\u2019Isagog\u00e8 de Porphyre et le d\u00e9but des Cat\u00e9gories, une compilation de la litt\u00e9rature ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique alexandrine et ath\u00e9nienne (on y trouve du Simplicius), enrichie \u00e7\u00e0 et l\u00e0 de nouveaut\u00e9s post\u00e9rieures au VIe si\u00e8cle. Le module de l\u2019\u00e9criture adopt\u00e9 par Ar\u00e9thas pour transcrire les commentaires dans les marges de l\u2019Urb. gr. 35 permet de saisir une pratique de la micrographie, \u00e9galement illustr\u00e9e (et de mani\u00e8re extr\u00eame) dans un autre contexte et \u00e0 une tout autre \u00e9poque, par le codex Mani de Cologne. Plus que le module des commentaires marginaux du Callimaque, les modules infimes du manuscrit d\u2019Aristote comme du codex Mani nous mettent peut-\u00eatre sur la voie du type d\u2019\u00e9criture utilis\u00e9 pour la copie des \u0153uvres immenses d\u2019un Proclus, d\u2019un Damascius ou d\u2019un Simplicius.\r\n\r\nOn peut imaginer que les livres de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne prenaient volontiers la forme des codices de grand format d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9voqu\u00e9s, et dont l\u2019usage est attest\u00e9 pour des textes profanes ou classiques. S\u2019ils contenaient un texte des auctoritates, de vastes marges pouvaient accueillir des commentaires de l\u2019\u00e9cole (c\u2019est le cas des commentaires de Proclus sur H\u00e9siode et sur Orph\u00e9e). S\u2019ils contenaient une \u0153uvre ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique \u00ab moderne \u00bb (de Proclus ou de Simplicius), la pratique d\u2019\u00e9critures de petit module ne pouvait-elle permettre de maintenir dans des limites spatiales maniables des textes correspondant \u00e0 des centaines de pages dans les \u00e9ditions modernes ? Mais ce n\u2019est l\u00e0, bien s\u00fbr, qu\u2019une suggestion, ou plut\u00f4t une ultime question. [conclusion p. 630-632]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/csXi7Zihz5LcEep","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":195,"full_name":"Prato, Giancarlo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":711,"section_of":158,"pages":"601-632","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":158,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"it","title":"I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Paleografia Greca (Cremona, 4-10 ottobre 1998), Tomo 2","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Prato2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kvRD4rywoYZSgSs","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":158,"pubplace":"Florence","publisher":"Gonnelli","series":"Papyrologica Florentina","volume":"31","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2000]}

The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity, 2000
By: Sluiter, Ineke, Depew, Mary (Ed.), Obbink, Dirk (Ed.)
Title The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2000
Published in Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society
Pages 183-203
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sluiter, Ineke
Editor(s) Depew, Mary , Obbink, Dirk
Translator(s)
In ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of “genre”), “secondary literature” was rarely regarded as a full-blown genre (εἶδος) (see the fourth major section, earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator (second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commentator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal representation of his source-text, but at the same time, he cannot give up his critical judgment. The commentator has a dual professional affiliation, as a doctor, philosopher, or astronomer, etc., and as a “grammarian,” an interpreter of someone else’s work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, the commentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the activities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever-accumulating knowledge. Ancient commentators themselves are familiar with generic distinctions and apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on the source-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that they themselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks. They are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position—even though they do not call their own work a separate “genre” (fifth section, earlier). There is a risk of reducing the term “genre” to virtual meaninglessness if every subdivision made in ancient texts is described as the recognition of a new genre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions, both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the special nature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. The prefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplify the rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of the commentators on the nature of their activities. However, it is possible to engage in that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms of genre. [conclusion 202–203]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"394","_score":null,"_source":{"id":394,"authors_free":[{"id":518,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":317,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","free_first_name":"Ineke","free_last_name":"Sluiter","norm_person":{"id":317,"first_name":"Ineke","last_name":"Sluiter","full_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132967278","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":519,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":59,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Depew, Mary","free_first_name":"Mary","free_last_name":"Depew","norm_person":{"id":59,"first_name":" Mary","last_name":"Depew","full_name":"Depew, Mary","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174040806","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":520,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":318,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Obbink, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Obbink","norm_person":{"id":318,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Obbink","full_name":"Obbink, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132550458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity"},"abstract":"In ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of \u201cgenre\u201d), \u201csecondary literature\u201d was rarely regarded as a full-blown genre (\u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2) (see the fourth major section, earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator (second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commentator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal representation of his source-text, but at the same time, he cannot give up his critical judgment.\r\n\r\nThe commentator has a dual professional affiliation, as a doctor, philosopher, or astronomer, etc., and as a \u201cgrammarian,\u201d an interpreter of someone else\u2019s work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, the commentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the activities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever-accumulating knowledge.\r\n\r\nAncient commentators themselves are familiar with generic distinctions and apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on the source-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that they themselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks. They are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position\u2014even though they do not call their own work a separate \u201cgenre\u201d (fifth section, earlier).\r\n\r\nThere is a risk of reducing the term \u201cgenre\u201d to virtual meaninglessness if every subdivision made in ancient texts is described as the recognition of a new genre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions, both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the special nature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. The prefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplify the rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of the commentators on the nature of their activities.\r\n\r\nHowever, it is possible to engage in that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms of genre. [conclusion 202\u2013203]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6IXo92il3CT8q6x","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":317,"full_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":59,"full_name":"Depew, Mary","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":318,"full_name":"Obbink, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":394,"section_of":319,"pages":"183-203","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":319,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Depew\/Obbink2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"The literary genres given shape by the writers of classical antiquity are central to our own thinking about the various forms literature takes. Examining those genres, the essays collected here focus on the concept and role of the author and the emergence of authorship out of performance in Greece and Rome.\r\n\r\nIn a fruitful variety of ways the contributors to this volume address the questions: what generic rules were recognized and observed by the Greeks and Romans over the centuries; what competing schemes were there for classifying genres and accounting for literary change; and what role did authors play in maintaining and developing generic contexts? Their essays look at tragedy, epigram, hymns, rhapsodic poetry, history, comedy, bucolic poetry, prophecy, Augustan poetry, commentaries, didactic poetry, and works that \"mix genres.\"\r\n\r\nThe contributors bring to this analysis a wide range of expertise; they are, in addition to the editors, Glenn W. Most, Joseph Day, Ian Rutherford, Deborah Boedeker, Eric Csapo, Marco Fantuzzi, Stephanie West, Alessandro Barchiesi, Ineke Sluiter, Don Fowler, and Stephen Hinds. The essays are drawn from a colloquium at Harvard's Center for Hellenic Studies. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yqvzvd62JmM5MpJ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":319,"pubplace":"Cambridge (Mass.)","publisher":"Harvard University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2000]}

Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d’Aristote, 2000
By: Dalimier, Catherine, Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile (Ed.)
Title Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d’Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 2000
Published in Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999
Pages 377-386
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dalimier, Catherine
Editor(s) Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile
Translator(s)
Cette étude vise à souligner – si nous n’en étions pas encore persuadés – toute la partialité de commentateurs qui se présentent pourtant comme les dépositaires soigneux d’une tradition. Elle s’applique aux pages apparemment les plus neutres du long Commentaire de Simplicius au Traité sur le ciel d’Aristote, qui utilise et discute de nombreux commentaires grecs antérieurs. Il saute aux yeux que certains développements polémiques de ces commentateurs sont théologiquement motivés, par exemple leurs développements sur l’existence du cinquième élément et ceux qui concernent l’origine de l’univers ; mais, d’une façon plus radicale, leurs enjeux et leur stratégie m’apparaissent au niveau le plus plat de leur discours, dans les pages apparemment impersonnelles où ils reformulent les raisonnements élaborés par Aristote. Cette reformulation syllogistique (RS), suivant les préceptes donnés dans les ouvrages logiques d’Aristote, fait passer des raisonnements exprimés en langage naturel dans un langage et une disposition canoniques qui mettent en valeur les prémisses explicites ou implicites et isolent la conclusion ; le tout est articulé par des conjonctions et des formules modales qui ne sont pas toujours identiques à celles d’Aristote, ni même présentes dans son texte. Dans le Commentaire au Traité sur le ciel, le caractère répétitif, fastidieux même de ces reformulations, accentué par la structure en abîme de ce traité particulier, la reprise de thèses d’un livre à l’autre, et la circularité de certains raisonnements, peut tromper le lecteur. Gardons-nous pourtant de n’y voir qu’une démonstration scolaire de virtuosité technique. Modifications et ajouts sont beaucoup plus que des effets de variatio à valeur didactique : ils nous confirment les présupposés théologiques et épistémiques du commentateur, présupposés particulièrement importants, s’agissant de la science difficile à classer qu’était l’astronomie dans l’Antiquité. [introduction p. 377-378]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1288","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1288,"authors_free":[{"id":1877,"entry_id":1288,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":61,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","free_first_name":"Catherine","free_last_name":"Dalimier","norm_person":{"id":61,"first_name":"Catherine","last_name":"Dalimier","full_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2337,"entry_id":1288,"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}}],"entry_title":"Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Cette \u00e9tude vise \u00e0 souligner \u2013 si nous n\u2019en \u00e9tions pas encore persuad\u00e9s \u2013 toute la partialit\u00e9 de commentateurs qui se pr\u00e9sentent pourtant comme les d\u00e9positaires soigneux d\u2019une tradition. Elle s\u2019applique aux pages apparemment les plus neutres du long Commentaire de Simplicius au Trait\u00e9 sur le ciel d\u2019Aristote, qui utilise et discute de nombreux commentaires grecs ant\u00e9rieurs. Il saute aux yeux que certains d\u00e9veloppements pol\u00e9miques de ces commentateurs sont th\u00e9ologiquement motiv\u00e9s, par exemple leurs d\u00e9veloppements sur l\u2019existence du cinqui\u00e8me \u00e9l\u00e9ment et ceux qui concernent l\u2019origine de l\u2019univers ; mais, d\u2019une fa\u00e7on plus radicale, leurs enjeux et leur strat\u00e9gie m\u2019apparaissent au niveau le plus plat de leur discours, dans les pages apparemment impersonnelles o\u00f9 ils reformulent les raisonnements \u00e9labor\u00e9s par Aristote.\r\n\r\nCette reformulation syllogistique (RS), suivant les pr\u00e9ceptes donn\u00e9s dans les ouvrages logiques d\u2019Aristote, fait passer des raisonnements exprim\u00e9s en langage naturel dans un langage et une disposition canoniques qui mettent en valeur les pr\u00e9misses explicites ou implicites et isolent la conclusion ; le tout est articul\u00e9 par des conjonctions et des formules modales qui ne sont pas toujours identiques \u00e0 celles d\u2019Aristote, ni m\u00eame pr\u00e9sentes dans son texte. Dans le Commentaire au Trait\u00e9 sur le ciel, le caract\u00e8re r\u00e9p\u00e9titif, fastidieux m\u00eame de ces reformulations, accentu\u00e9 par la structure en ab\u00eeme de ce trait\u00e9 particulier, la reprise de th\u00e8ses d\u2019un livre \u00e0 l\u2019autre, et la circularit\u00e9 de certains raisonnements, peut tromper le lecteur. Gardons-nous pourtant de n\u2019y voir qu\u2019une d\u00e9monstration scolaire de virtuosit\u00e9 technique. Modifications et ajouts sont beaucoup plus que des effets de variatio \u00e0 valeur didactique : ils nous confirment les pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s th\u00e9ologiques et \u00e9pist\u00e9miques du commentateur, pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s particuli\u00e8rement importants, s\u2019agissant de la science difficile \u00e0 classer qu\u2019\u00e9tait l\u2019astronomie dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. [introduction p. 377-378]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cQxTAlCRsoikXrH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":61,"full_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1288,"section_of":269,"pages":"377-386","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":269,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet-Caz\u00e92000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"Une bonne partie de la litterature universelle est une litterature de commentaire. Cette constatation s'applique particulierement a la litterature antique et medievale, fortement ancree dans la tradition grace aux institutions scolaires. Situes en fait au croisement de la tradition et de l'innovation, les textes exegetiques s'attachent d'abod a comprendre et a expliquer la pensee des maitres qui font autorite, mais souvent ils essaient aussi de la depasser, si bien que la demarche du commentaire peut aller de l'exegese la plus litterale a l'interpretation la plus allegorisante, de l'explication la plus traditionnelle au commentaire le plus neuf. L'objectif de ce recueil est de cerner sous tous ses aspects, dans toutes ses composantes et toutes ses problematiques, la realite du commentaire depuis sa fabrication materielle jusqu'a l'elabotration de ses contenus speculatifs, dans des aires culturelles multiples: mondes grec, latin, hebraique, arabe indien et a des epoques differentes: hellenistique, Empire romain, Moyen Age et Renaissance. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RdY8RrIpT0hwHi3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":269,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1288,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oriens-Occidens","volume":"2","issue":"","pages":"77-94"}},"sort":[2000]}

An Introduction to Aspasius, 1999
By: Barnes, Jonathan, Alberti, Antonina (Ed.), Sharples, Robert W. (Ed.)
Title An Introduction to Aspasius
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1999
Published in Aspasius: The Earliest Extant Commentary on Aristotle's Ethics
Pages 1-50
Categories no categories
Author(s) Barnes, Jonathan
Editor(s) Alberti, Antonina , Sharples, Robert W.
Translator(s)
The text, An Introduction to Aspasius, explores his life, works, and his Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. It examines Aspasius’ contributions to ethical philosophy and his relationship with Aristotle’s texts, highlighting his influence on the interpretation and transmission of Aristotelian thought. [derived from the whole text]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"633","_score":null,"_source":{"id":633,"authors_free":[{"id":893,"entry_id":633,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":894,"entry_id":633,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":506,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Alberti, Antonina","free_first_name":"Antonina","free_last_name":"Alberti","norm_person":{"id":506,"first_name":"Antonina","last_name":"Alberti","full_name":"Alberti, Antonina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":895,"entry_id":633,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}}],"entry_title":"An Introduction to Aspasius","main_title":{"title":"An Introduction to Aspasius"},"abstract":"The text, An Introduction to Aspasius, explores his life, works, and his Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. It examines Aspasius\u2019 contributions to ethical philosophy and his relationship with Aristotle\u2019s texts, highlighting his influence on the interpretation and transmission of Aristotelian thought. [derived from the whole text]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hbcmVxtFs2Lthsj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":506,"full_name":"Alberti, Antonina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":633,"section_of":286,"pages":"1-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":286,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aspasius: The Earliest Extant Commentary on Aristotle's Ethics","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Alberti_Sharples_1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"This book comprises essays on the nature of Aspasius\u2019 commentary, his interpretation of Aristotle, and his own place in the history of thought. The contributions are in English or Italian.\r\n\r\nAspasius\u2019 commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics is the earliest ancient commentary on Aristotle of which extensive parts survive in their original form. It is important both for the history of commentary as a genre and for the history of philosophical thought in the first two centuries A.D.; it is also still valuable as what its author intended it to be, an aid in interpreting the Ethics. All three aspects are explored by the essays.\r\n\r\nThe book is not formally a commentary on Aspasius\u2019 commentary; but between them the essays consider the interpretation of numerous problematic or significant passages. Full indices will enable readers quickly to locate discussion of particular parts of Aspasius\u2019 work. This volume of essays will form a natural complement to the first ever translation of Aspasius\u2019 commentary into any modern language, currently in preparation by Paul Mercken.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sA4gaXkwHHMBbmx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":286,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi","volume":"17","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}

Les analyses de l'énoncé: catégories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs néoplatoniciens, 1999
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Diebler, Stéphane (Ed.), Rashed, Marwan (Ed.), Büttgen, Philippe (Ed.)
Title Les analyses de l'énoncé: catégories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs néoplatoniciens
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1999
Published in Théories de la phrase et de la proposition, de Platon à Averroès
Pages 209-248
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Diebler, Stéphane , Rashed, Marwan , Büttgen, Philippe
Translator(s)
Avec les exégètes néoplatoniciens d’Aristote, à la fin de l'Antiquité, l'intérêt constant porté au discours par les philosophes grecs – depuis les sophistes, Platon, Aristote, les stoïciens – trouve son point d’achèvement, tandis que s’affirme nettement la différence des deux points de vue – grammatical et logique – que l’on peut porter sur l’énoncé. Cet effort de distinction caractérise la littérature des commentaires sur l’Organon, qui correspond, on le sait, au début du cours de philosophie néoplatonicienne dans l’Antiquité tardive. L’étude de l’Organon commençait, après des enseignements propédeutiques et une lecture de l’Isagoge de Porphyre, par l’exégèse du traité des Catégories, que domine une description fine du "but", du skopos. Les catégories sont les éléments constitutifs de l’énoncé déclaratif (logos apophantikós), seule espèce du logos à être vraie ou fausse, et qui est lui-même la base du syllogisme démonstratif, lequel est le point culminant ou la clé de voûte de la logique, puisque la démonstration est l’instrument de discernement du vrai et du faux dans le domaine de la théorie, et du bien et du mal dans le domaine de la pratique. Les catégories sont les termes “qui ne se disent pas en liaison”, c’est-à-dire qui ne sont pas pris dans une syntaxe attributive et qui se contentent encore de “signifier”. La doctrine des catégories est, en son fond, sémantique et ressortit à la logique. Mais elle reflète une division (diairesis) des étants en dix classes suprêmes, les “genres généralissimes”. Lorsqu’il commente le chapitre 2 des Catégories, Simplicius explique que la division en dix catégories s’inscrit elle-même dans une séquence dyade-tétrade-décade. Aristote, affirme-t-il, commence avec raison par donner une quadruple division des étants, puisque la tétrade est plus fondamentale que la décade, et que cette quadripartition se ramène elle-même à une bipartition : "[...] puisque, nous l'avons vu, le but (skopos) porte sur les mots simples et génériques, qui signifient les réalités simples et génériques, avant de les diviser (diairesis) en le plus grand nombre de termes possible – j'entends par là la division en dix catégories, au-delà desquelles on ne pouvait en trouver d’autres –, Aristote a jugé bon de commencer par une division minimale, car on ne pouvait rassembler les mots simples en un plus petit nombre de groupes : en effet cette façon de procéder était scientifique (epistêmonikón) parce que la décade est comprise dans la tétrade ; en effet en faisant la somme d’un, deux, trois et quatre, nous obtenons le nombre dix ; et la tétrade, à rebours, Aristote l’a rassemblée dans la dyade. Les quatre termes dont nous parlons sont : l’essence, l’accident, l’universel et le particulier. Les étants en effet se divisent en deux (ta onta diaireitai dikhôs) [...]". Ces deux termes sont l’essence (qui correspond à la première catégorie) et l’accident (sous le chef duquel se regroupent les neuf autres catégories). À la fin de l’explication de ce lemme, Simplicius précise que “la division en quatre termes n’est pas une division au sens propre, mais plutôt un dénombrement (anarithmêsis)”. L'analyse du logos apophantikós conduit donc le philosophe à distinguer entre dix “mots simples”, les dix catégories énumérées par Aristote, et qui constituent, aux yeux des exégètes antiques, une liste exhaustive en droit et close : la substance ou l’essence (ousia, ti esti), la quantité (poson), la qualité (poion), la relation (pros ti), l’agir et le pâtir (poiein, paschein), le "quand” et le “où” (pote, pou), la situation et l’avoir (keisthai, echein). Cette analyse ne coïncide en rien avec celle des grammairiens qui, à la fin de l'Antiquité, enseignent de manière fixe la doctrine des huit “parties du discours” (merê tou logou), progressivement élaborée comme le fruit de ce qu’ils nomment le merismos (“partition”). Ces huit “parties du discours” sont, dans l'ordre : le nom, le verbe, le participe, l’article, le pronom, la préposition, l'adverbe et la conjonction. Soucieux, pour plusieurs raisons, de distinguer leur recherche de l’activité grammaticale, les commentateurs néoplatoniciens d’Aristote ont soigneusement distingué entre ces deux modes d'analyse du logos (discours, phrase, proposition, énoncé) : la division des catégories, qui est fondée sur la diairesis des étants en dix genres – elle relève de la logique et participe de l’ontologie – et la merismos grammaticale des éléments du langage en huit classes (les huit “parties du discours”). La lecture des Catégories conduisait ces exégètes à rencontrer certaines difficultés. Tout d'abord, il y avait un débat sur la nature même des "catégories" (sont-elles des mots ? des notions ? des réalités ?). Des adversaires stoïciens d’Aristote (Athénodore et Cornutus) contestaient la complétude de la liste, insuffisante selon eux, puisqu’ils voyaient en elle le résultat d’une division des mots. Le débat sur l’origine grammaticale des catégories, ou sur le lien de cette doctrine avec l’objet propre et la discipline de la grammaire, illustré à l’époque moderne par les travaux d’auteurs aussi différents que Trendelenburg ou E. Benveniste, était déjà un débat antique. Autre question. Le début du De interpretatione présente un exposé sur le nom (onoma) et le verbe (rhêma), qui sont à la fois des termes logiques (sujet et prédicat) et les deux premières “parties du discours” selon la liste canonique des grammairiens. Comment rendre compte de la rencontre, mais aussi de la différence, entre le point de vue du philosophe lecteur de l’Organon et le point de vue du grammairien ? Comment expliquer la succession – dans la perspective de l’“ordre de lecture” néoplatonicien – des Catégories et du De interpretatione ? La tâche de tout commentateur néoplatonicien était donc d'expliquer à la fois comment distinguer entre l’analyse grammaticale d'une phrase et l’analyse logique d’un énoncé véridique, et quelle est l’articulation de la doctrine des Catégories et de la doctrine du De interpretatione. Il faut pour cela rappeler quels étaient les “buts” assignés par les exégètes à ces deux traités, qui étaient lus l’un à la suite de l’autre dans “l’ordre de lecture” des œuvres d’Aristote tel qu’il était pratiqué à la fin de l’Antiquité. [introduction p. 209-212]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"680","_score":null,"_source":{"id":680,"authors_free":[{"id":1005,"entry_id":680,"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":1006,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":192,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","free_first_name":"St\u00e9phane","free_last_name":"Diebler","norm_person":{"id":192,"first_name":"St\u00e9phane ","last_name":" Diebler","full_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135973635","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1007,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1008,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":193,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"B\u00fcttgen","norm_person":{"id":193,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":" B\u00fcttgen","full_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071071025","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"Avec les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes n\u00e9oplatoniciens d\u2019Aristote, \u00e0 la fin de l'Antiquit\u00e9, l'int\u00e9r\u00eat constant port\u00e9 au discours par les philosophes grecs \u2013 depuis les sophistes, Platon, Aristote, les sto\u00efciens \u2013 trouve son point d\u2019ach\u00e8vement, tandis que s\u2019affirme nettement la diff\u00e9rence des deux points de vue \u2013 grammatical et logique \u2013 que l\u2019on peut porter sur l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9. Cet effort de distinction caract\u00e9rise la litt\u00e9rature des commentaires sur l\u2019Organon, qui correspond, on le sait, au d\u00e9but du cours de philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive.\r\n\r\nL\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019Organon commen\u00e7ait, apr\u00e8s des enseignements prop\u00e9deutiques et une lecture de l\u2019Isagoge de Porphyre, par l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se du trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories, que domine une description fine du \"but\", du skopos. Les cat\u00e9gories sont les \u00e9l\u00e9ments constitutifs de l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9 d\u00e9claratif (logos apophantik\u00f3s), seule esp\u00e8ce du logos \u00e0 \u00eatre vraie ou fausse, et qui est lui-m\u00eame la base du syllogisme d\u00e9monstratif, lequel est le point culminant ou la cl\u00e9 de vo\u00fbte de la logique, puisque la d\u00e9monstration est l\u2019instrument de discernement du vrai et du faux dans le domaine de la th\u00e9orie, et du bien et du mal dans le domaine de la pratique. Les cat\u00e9gories sont les termes \u201cqui ne se disent pas en liaison\u201d, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire qui ne sont pas pris dans une syntaxe attributive et qui se contentent encore de \u201csignifier\u201d. La doctrine des cat\u00e9gories est, en son fond, s\u00e9mantique et ressortit \u00e0 la logique. Mais elle refl\u00e8te une division (diairesis) des \u00e9tants en dix classes supr\u00eames, les \u201cgenres g\u00e9n\u00e9ralissimes\u201d.\r\n\r\nLorsqu\u2019il commente le chapitre 2 des Cat\u00e9gories, Simplicius explique que la division en dix cat\u00e9gories s\u2019inscrit elle-m\u00eame dans une s\u00e9quence dyade-t\u00e9trade-d\u00e9cade. Aristote, affirme-t-il, commence avec raison par donner une quadruple division des \u00e9tants, puisque la t\u00e9trade est plus fondamentale que la d\u00e9cade, et que cette quadripartition se ram\u00e8ne elle-m\u00eame \u00e0 une bipartition :\r\n\r\n\"[...] puisque, nous l'avons vu, le but (skopos) porte sur les mots simples et g\u00e9n\u00e9riques, qui signifient les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s simples et g\u00e9n\u00e9riques, avant de les diviser (diairesis) en le plus grand nombre de termes possible \u2013 j'entends par l\u00e0 la division en dix cat\u00e9gories, au-del\u00e0 desquelles on ne pouvait en trouver d\u2019autres \u2013, Aristote a jug\u00e9 bon de commencer par une division minimale, car on ne pouvait rassembler les mots simples en un plus petit nombre de groupes : en effet cette fa\u00e7on de proc\u00e9der \u00e9tait scientifique (epist\u00eamonik\u00f3n) parce que la d\u00e9cade est comprise dans la t\u00e9trade ; en effet en faisant la somme d\u2019un, deux, trois et quatre, nous obtenons le nombre dix ; et la t\u00e9trade, \u00e0 rebours, Aristote l\u2019a rassembl\u00e9e dans la dyade. Les quatre termes dont nous parlons sont : l\u2019essence, l\u2019accident, l\u2019universel et le particulier. Les \u00e9tants en effet se divisent en deux (ta onta diaireitai dikh\u00f4s) [...]\".\r\n\r\nCes deux termes sont l\u2019essence (qui correspond \u00e0 la premi\u00e8re cat\u00e9gorie) et l\u2019accident (sous le chef duquel se regroupent les neuf autres cat\u00e9gories). \u00c0 la fin de l\u2019explication de ce lemme, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que \u201cla division en quatre termes n\u2019est pas une division au sens propre, mais plut\u00f4t un d\u00e9nombrement (anarithm\u00easis)\u201d.\r\n\r\nL'analyse du logos apophantik\u00f3s conduit donc le philosophe \u00e0 distinguer entre dix \u201cmots simples\u201d, les dix cat\u00e9gories \u00e9num\u00e9r\u00e9es par Aristote, et qui constituent, aux yeux des ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes antiques, une liste exhaustive en droit et close : la substance ou l\u2019essence (ousia, ti esti), la quantit\u00e9 (poson), la qualit\u00e9 (poion), la relation (pros ti), l\u2019agir et le p\u00e2tir (poiein, paschein), le \"quand\u201d et le \u201co\u00f9\u201d (pote, pou), la situation et l\u2019avoir (keisthai, echein).\r\n\r\nCette analyse ne co\u00efncide en rien avec celle des grammairiens qui, \u00e0 la fin de l'Antiquit\u00e9, enseignent de mani\u00e8re fixe la doctrine des huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d (mer\u00ea tou logou), progressivement \u00e9labor\u00e9e comme le fruit de ce qu\u2019ils nomment le merismos (\u201cpartition\u201d). Ces huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d sont, dans l'ordre : le nom, le verbe, le participe, l\u2019article, le pronom, la pr\u00e9position, l'adverbe et la conjonction.\r\n\r\nSoucieux, pour plusieurs raisons, de distinguer leur recherche de l\u2019activit\u00e9 grammaticale, les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens d\u2019Aristote ont soigneusement distingu\u00e9 entre ces deux modes d'analyse du logos (discours, phrase, proposition, \u00e9nonc\u00e9) : la division des cat\u00e9gories, qui est fond\u00e9e sur la diairesis des \u00e9tants en dix genres \u2013 elle rel\u00e8ve de la logique et participe de l\u2019ontologie \u2013 et la merismos grammaticale des \u00e9l\u00e9ments du langage en huit classes (les huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d).\r\n\r\nLa lecture des Cat\u00e9gories conduisait ces ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes \u00e0 rencontrer certaines difficult\u00e9s. Tout d'abord, il y avait un d\u00e9bat sur la nature m\u00eame des \"cat\u00e9gories\" (sont-elles des mots ? des notions ? des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ?). Des adversaires sto\u00efciens d\u2019Aristote (Ath\u00e9nodore et Cornutus) contestaient la compl\u00e9tude de la liste, insuffisante selon eux, puisqu\u2019ils voyaient en elle le r\u00e9sultat d\u2019une division des mots. Le d\u00e9bat sur l\u2019origine grammaticale des cat\u00e9gories, ou sur le lien de cette doctrine avec l\u2019objet propre et la discipline de la grammaire, illustr\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque moderne par les travaux d\u2019auteurs aussi diff\u00e9rents que Trendelenburg ou E. Benveniste, \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 un d\u00e9bat antique.\r\n\r\nAutre question. Le d\u00e9but du De interpretatione pr\u00e9sente un expos\u00e9 sur le nom (onoma) et le verbe (rh\u00eama), qui sont \u00e0 la fois des termes logiques (sujet et pr\u00e9dicat) et les deux premi\u00e8res \u201cparties du discours\u201d selon la liste canonique des grammairiens. Comment rendre compte de la rencontre, mais aussi de la diff\u00e9rence, entre le point de vue du philosophe lecteur de l\u2019Organon et le point de vue du grammairien ? Comment expliquer la succession \u2013 dans la perspective de l\u2019\u201cordre de lecture\u201d n\u00e9oplatonicien \u2013 des Cat\u00e9gories et du De interpretatione ?\r\n\r\nLa t\u00e2che de tout commentateur n\u00e9oplatonicien \u00e9tait donc d'expliquer \u00e0 la fois comment distinguer entre l\u2019analyse grammaticale d'une phrase et l\u2019analyse logique d\u2019un \u00e9nonc\u00e9 v\u00e9ridique, et quelle est l\u2019articulation de la doctrine des Cat\u00e9gories et de la doctrine du De interpretatione.\r\n\r\nIl faut pour cela rappeler quels \u00e9taient les \u201cbuts\u201d assign\u00e9s par les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes \u00e0 ces deux trait\u00e9s, qui \u00e9taient lus l\u2019un \u00e0 la suite de l\u2019autre dans \u201cl\u2019ordre de lecture\u201d des \u0153uvres d\u2019Aristote tel qu\u2019il \u00e9tait pratiqu\u00e9 \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. [introduction p. 209-212]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bzuFZeua3rVa1TS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":192,"full_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":193,"full_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":680,"section_of":363,"pages":"209-248","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":363,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Th\u00e9ories de la phrase et de la proposition, de Platon \u00e0 Averro\u00e8s","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Diebler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Les th\u00e9ories de la phrase et de la proposition de l'Antiquit\u00e9 au Moyen \u00c2ge n'avaient jusqu'\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent jamais fait l'objet d'une \u00e9tude d'ensemble. On trouvera dans cet ouvrage, outre de nombreux travaux substantiels sur Platon et Aristote, des contributions novatrices sur la tradition sto\u00efcienne, ainsi que sur les aristot\u00e9lismes grec, syriaque, arabe et latin. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ui6DfE48AHsbm24","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":363,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}

Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion, 1999
By: Thiel, Rainer, Fuhrer, Therese (Ed.), Erler, Michael (Ed.)
Title Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1999
Published in Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Spätantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier
Pages 93-103
Categories no categories
Author(s) Thiel, Rainer
Editor(s) Fuhrer, Therese , Erler, Michael
Translator(s)
The text presents an analysis of the Stoic ethics and its placement within the Neoplatonic system, particularly in Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Enchiridion. It explores how the Neoplatonic tradition emerged as a unified philosophical school, leading to the disappearance of conflicting philosophical schools. Despite the Stoic teachings being present in Neoplatonic works, they are generally treated critically and dismissed as opposed to the Aristotelian position. The text then delves into the Neoplatonic system of virtues, starting with Plato's four cardinal virtues, which were further developed by Neoplatonists. It highlights Plotinus' view that the political virtues alone are not sufficient for the soul's ascent to divine perfection, as they are related to the material world. Instead, Plotinus introduces the concept of "purifications" as the virtues that enable the soul to detach from bodily passions and elevate itself towards the divine. The abstract concludes by emphasizing the relevance of Simplikios' application of this Neoplatonic virtue system to Epictetus' Enchiridion, positioning it as an essential tool for the soul's progress towards resemblance to the divine. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"470","_score":null,"_source":{"id":470,"authors_free":[{"id":633,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":333,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Thiel, Rainer","free_first_name":"Rainer","free_last_name":"Thiel","norm_person":{"id":333,"first_name":"Rainer","last_name":"Thiel","full_name":"Thiel, Rainer","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12885054X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":634,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":339,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","free_first_name":"Therese","free_last_name":"Fuhrer","norm_person":{"id":339,"first_name":"Therese","last_name":"Fuhrer","full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117693804","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":635,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion","main_title":{"title":"Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion"},"abstract":"The text presents an analysis of the Stoic ethics and its placement within the Neoplatonic system, particularly in Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Enchiridion. It explores how the Neoplatonic tradition emerged as a unified philosophical school, leading to the disappearance of conflicting philosophical schools. Despite the Stoic teachings being present in Neoplatonic works, they are generally treated critically and dismissed as opposed to the Aristotelian position. The text then delves into the Neoplatonic system of virtues, starting with Plato's four cardinal virtues, which were further developed by Neoplatonists. It highlights Plotinus' view that the political virtues alone are not sufficient for the soul's ascent to divine perfection, as they are related to the material world. Instead, Plotinus introduces the concept of \"purifications\" as the virtues that enable the soul to detach from bodily passions and elevate itself towards the divine. The abstract concludes by emphasizing the relevance of Simplikios' application of this Neoplatonic virtue system to Epictetus' Enchiridion, positioning it as an essential tool for the soul's progress towards resemblance to the divine. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RKLOhPA3UpPbgKk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":333,"full_name":"Thiel, Rainer","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":339,"full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":470,"section_of":324,"pages":"93-103","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":324,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Sp\u00e4tantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fuhrer\/Erler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Review by T. Runia: As a generalization it is often remarked that the poor state of our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, based almost exclusively on reports and fragments, is due to the decline of interest in this philosophy during the period of late antiquity. After the schools had closed down by the beginning of the 3rd century C.E., Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean writings ceased to circulate widely, and in the end disappeared completely. Of course the end result of this process cannot be disputed. These writings have simply disappeared and, short of a miracle, they will not resurface.\r\n\r\nBut the process certainly took longer and was less radical in its earlier stages than is often thought. Late ancient philosophers and theologians in many cases still had a considerable knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy and used that knowledge to good effect in their own writings.\r\n\r\nThe theme of the reception of Hellenistic philosophy in late antiquity is the subject of the book under review, which contains fifteen studies originally presented at a conference in Trier in 1997. The studies are in German, with two exceptions, a paper in Italian and one in English. They have been prepared by a group of young scholars, mainly in their 30's and 40's, who in most cases have taken up positions in German and Swiss universities during the past decade or so.\r\n\r\nReviewing the various studies, one cannot but help noticing a marked similarity of method. The subjects treated are on the whole fairly limited in scope, and often concentrate on a particular author and a particular text. The detailed treatment is usually prefaced by an introductory section, which places the subject in a wider context, for example by tracing its development from the end of the Hellenistic period to the time of the author being discussed.These introductory sections can sometimes be very entertaining and informative (as in the case of the article of Christoph Riedweg, who points out remarkable correspondences between the period of late antiquity and our own time), but can also be too much simply a catalogue of authors and texts (as in the case of the survey of Epicureanism from Hadrian to Lactantius in the article by Jochem Althoff). The end result is that we have fifteen small but well-featured islands standing out in the broader sea of the book's subject.\r\n\r\nThe brief introduction competently but very succinctly outlines three connecting themes:\r\n\r\n The role of the Stoa and Epicureanism in Platonist philosophy.\r\n Scepticism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism in Christian literature.\r\n Doctrines of the Hellenistic philosophical schools as general cultural knowledge (Bildungsgut).\r\n\r\nBut no real attempt is made to cover the subject in more general terms. This is increasingly the method of such selective conference volumes. In spite of the general title, it is primarily a book for specialists.\r\n\r\nThe fifteen papers can be more or less divided into the three thematic categories noted above. Four concentrate on Hellenistic themes in later Platonism: Dominic O'Meara on Epicurus Neoplatonicus, Rainer Thiel and Michael Erler on the preparatory role of Hellenistic (and especially Stoic) ethics, Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel on Proclus' doctrine of the origin of evil and its Hellenistic antecedents. Christoph Riedweg, by investigating Julian's use of Stoic and Platonic argumentation in his anti-Christian polemic, bridges the gap with the eight contributions which concentrate on Patristic authors.\r\n\r\nThe intellectual dominance of Augustine is illustrated by the fact that no less than five contributions concentrate on his writings: Maria Bettetini on the background to De musica (very little Hellenistic philosophy here), Karin Schlapbach on Ciceronian and Neoplatonist elements in the proarmia of Contra Academicos I & II, Sabine Harwardt on Stoic argumentation in De beata vita, Christoph Horn on Augustine's moral philosophy in relation to Greek virtue ethics, Therese Fuhrer on the Hellenistic epistemological background of Augustine's concept of faith.\r\n\r\nThe other three specifically Patristic contributions are on Amobius (philosophical themes in his apologetic argumentation, by Sabine Follinger), Lactantius (his use of Epicurus, by Jochem Althoff), and Prudentius (virtue against vice in the Psychomachia, by Carolin Oser-Grote).\r\n\r\nThe volume ends with two more general treatments. Karla Pollman attempts to trace two differing conceptions of fictionality\u2014the Platonic mimesis-model focused on the author and the Stoic signification-model focused more on the reader\u2014from Hellenistic philosophy to their adaptation in late ancient texts. Ulrich Eigler, in an ambitious and stimulating contribution, investigates the cultural context of the kind of amateur use of philosophy that we find, for example, in Jerome's writings. Of these fifteen articles, three stand out on account of the lucidity of their treatment and the importance of their subject. Christoph Horn's method is perhaps somewhat unusual, in that he focuses his treatment of Augustine's virtue ethics almost entirely on a point-by-point rebuttal of the position of the Swedish scholar of a previous generation, Gosta Hok, whom he accuses of interpreting Augustine in such a way as to make him a fideistic opponent of ancient rationalism. In actual fact, Augustine unreservedly takes over the basic theses of ancient ethical rationalism, but in his later years reserves it for followers of the \"true religion,\" without coming to a real discussion with its original Neoplatonist proponents.\r\n\r\nMany of Horn's points are well taken, but one wonders whether in this interpretation the gulf between Augustine's professed method of selective spoliatio and his actual practice of largely uncritical appropriation (as proposed by Horn) does not become too great. What Augustine objects to in ancient rationalism is its intellectual arrogance, the refusal to submit to the yoke of faith. This position seems to me to have revisionary aspirations. The struggle between \"catholic\" and \"protestant\" readings of Augustine is likely to continue.\r\n\r\nIn her paper on the epistemological background to Augustine's conception of faith, Therese Fuhrer argues that it is to be found in the Stoic theory in which assent (adsensio, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) precedes both knowledge (scientia, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7, based on comprehensio, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) and belief (opinio, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1). A priori, this seems not so likely, since the role assigned to volition in the two conceptions is quite different. Nevertheless, Fuhrer manages to show that both in terms of structure and terminology this background does have illuminating features.\r\n\r\nA difficulty remains that no texts indicating an explicit relation between the act of faith and epistemological assent can be found until two passages in very late writings. This article illustrates how difficult it is to pin Augustine down in relation to specific philosophical theories. It is his powerful transforming drive that makes his views so distinctive and so hard to categorize in \"doxographical\" terms.\r\n\r\nThe article of Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel is recommended reading for anyone interested in how ancient philosophers working within the tradition of classical ontology wrestled with the problem of evil. Not only does it give an excellent overview of the dilemmas involved and the solutions attempted, but it also draws on the new translation of Proclus' De malorum substantia, which the authors are preparing.\r\n\r\nThey show how Proclus tries to find a way out of the classical dilemma in which one either has to detract from providence or not take evil seriously enough as a real aspect of the world. Proclus' solution is intriguing but very risky. Any attribution of evil to the first cause is unacceptable, but in the light of Neoplatonist ontological monism this means that one has to understand evil as an (ultimately) uncaused event.\r\n\r\nNot only is this very awkward in light of the Platonic principle nihil fit sine causa, which Proclus fully endorses, but it also seems to reduce evil to a kind of accidental epiphenomenon. Opsomer and Steel argue that Proclus may have found a third way between the Stoa and the Peripatos (which reserves providence for the divine realm only), but at a considerable cost. They tentatively conclude that the Stoa continues to hold the last word in this debate, and that theodicy may well be the worst legacy that this school has left to subsequent philosophy. This is perhaps a somewhat disappointing result, but no better illustration could be given of the importance of studying Hellenistic philosophy as a background for late ancient and patristic philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn furthering this study, the book under review makes a valuable contribution. The volume also shows, as the product of predominantly young scholars, that the future of scholarship in the area of later ancient and Patristic philosophy is in good hands.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Wi5qXtXGHesjYwT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":324,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}

Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan, 1999
By: Fazzo, Silvia, Blackwell, Constance (Ed.), Kusukawa, Sachiko (Ed.)
Title Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1999
Published in Philosophy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Conversations with Aristotle
Pages 48-75
Categories no categories
Author(s) Fazzo, Silvia
Editor(s) Blackwell, Constance , Kusukawa, Sachiko
Translator(s)
My aim in this paper is to discuss some examples of the problems Renaissance scholars encountered in this regard [i.e. he great advantage of having Greek texts available in print]. In this first section, I will be concerned with a few sixteenth-century scholars and the close attention which they paid to the first Greek printed edition of the Quaestiones of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [p. 49]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"551","_score":null,"_source":{"id":551,"authors_free":[{"id":775,"entry_id":551,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":77,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","free_first_name":"Silvia","free_last_name":"Fazzo","norm_person":{"id":77,"first_name":"Silvia","last_name":"Fazzo","full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2098,"entry_id":551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":78,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blackwell, Constance","free_first_name":"Constance","free_last_name":"Blackwell","norm_person":{"id":78,"first_name":"Constance","last_name":"Blackwell","full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2099,"entry_id":551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":79,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kusukawa, Sachiko","free_first_name":"Sachiko","free_last_name":"Kusukawa","norm_person":{"id":79,"first_name":"Sachiko","last_name":"Kusukawa","full_name":"Kusukawa, Sachiko","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158263708","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan","main_title":{"title":"Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan"},"abstract":"My aim in this paper is to discuss some examples of the problems Renaissance \r\nscholars encountered in this regard [i.e. he great advantage of having Greek texts available in print]. In this first section, I will be concerned with \r\na few sixteenth-century scholars and the close attention which they paid to the \r\nfirst Greek printed edition of the Quaestiones of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [p. 49]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tTVeJQfmUSW2VyM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":78,"full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":79,"full_name":"Kusukawa, Sachiko","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":551,"section_of":261,"pages":"48-75","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":261,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Conversations with Aristotle","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blackwell\/Kusukawa1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"This volume offers an important re-evaluation of early modern philosophy. It takes issue with the received notion of a \u2019revolution\u2019 in philosophical thought in the 17th-century, making the case for treating the 16th and 17th centuries together. Taking up Charles Schmitt\u2019s formulation of the many \u2019Aristotelianisms\u2019 of the period, the papers bring out the variety and richness of the approaches to Aristotle, rather than treating his as a homogeneous system of thought. Based on much new research, they provide case studies of how philosophers used, developed, and reacted to the framework of Aristotelian logic, categories and distinctions, and demonstrate that Aristotelianism possessed both the flexibility and the dynamism to exert a continuing impact - even among such noted \u2019anti-Aristotelians\u2019 as Descartes and Hobbes. This constant engagement can indeed be termed \u2019conversations with Aristotle\u2019.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/In5fPTWQezWnPei","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":261,"pubplace":"Aldershot \u2013 Hants, U.K. \u2013 Brookfield, Vt.","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}

Diels' Vorsokratiker, Rückschau und Ausblick, 1999
By: Mansfeld, Jaap (Ed.), Calder, William M. (Ed.), Burkert, Walter
Title Diels' Vorsokratiker, Rückschau und Ausblick
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1999
Published in Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquité : huit exposés suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Genève 17 - 21 août 1998
Pages 169-197
Categories no categories
Author(s) Burkert, Walter
Editor(s) Mansfeld, Jaap , Calder, William M.
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1462","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1462,"authors_free":[{"id":2532,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2533,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":537,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Calder, William M.","free_first_name":"Calder","free_last_name":"William M.","norm_person":{"id":537,"first_name":"William M.","last_name":"Calder","full_name":"Calder, William M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122129296","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2534,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":538,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Burkert, Walter","free_first_name":"Walter","free_last_name":"Burkert","norm_person":{"id":538,"first_name":"Walter","last_name":"Burkert","full_name":"Burkert, Walter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119476967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick","main_title":{"title":"Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qmaq8lxyMueMGPD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":537,"full_name":"Calder, William M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":538,"full_name":"Burkert, Walter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1462,"section_of":336,"pages":"169-197","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":336,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquit\u00e9 : huit expos\u00e9s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Gen\u00e8ve 17 - 21 ao\u00fbt 1998","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Calder_Mansfeld1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UksPHusSKrnsi7e","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":336,"pubplace":"Gen\u00e8ve","publisher":"Fondation Hardt","series":"Entretiens sur l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"45","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}

Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Spätantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae'), 1999
By: Erler, Michael, Fuhrer, Therese (Ed.), Erler, Michael (Ed.)
Title Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Spätantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae')
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1999
Published in Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Spätantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier
Pages 105-122
Categories no categories
Author(s) Erler, Michael
Editor(s) Fuhrer, Therese , Erler, Michael
Translator(s)
Rainer Thiel (Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios’ Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion, 93-103) analysiert präzise, wie Simplikios in seinem Kommentar zu Epiktets Encheiridion den Wert der stoischen Ethik bestimmt: die Befolgung des dort Gesagten sei Voraussetzung für den eigentlichen philosophischen Aufstieg. Auch hier erscheint hellenistische Philosophie also als propädeutische Vorstufe, wobei Simplikios - wie Thiel zu Recht hervorhebt - freilich immer auch die Differenzen zwischen Epiktet und neuplatonischen Auffassungen benennt, was er zu seiner Zeit bereits in einer zurückhaltenden, unpolemischen Form tun kann. Von einer anderen Seite her kommt Michael Erler (Philosophie als Therapie — Hellenistische Philosophie als praeparatio philosophica im Platonismus der Spätantike, 105-22) - auch gestützt auf die Forschungen des Ehepaars Hadot - für Simplikios' Kommentar zu demselben Ergebnis (115: "eine gleichsam verschriftlichte Form schulmäßiger Vorbereitung auf das platonische Philosophiestudium") und gewinnt hieraus für Boethius' Consolatio Philosophiae eine überzeugende Erklärung für das Phänomen, daß stoisches Gedankengut in den ersten drei Büchern eine deutliche Rolle spielt, um danach in den Hintergrund zu treten. Indem Erler Boethius' Schrift in den Kontext platonischer Schulpraxis des allmählichen Aufsteigens zur Erkenntnis rückt, vermag er verständlich zu machen, was der rein literarische Vergleich mit anderer Konsolationsliteratur nicht zu erklären vermochte. In der ersten Werkhälfte geht es darum, den noch ganz im irdischen Leben gefangenen Boethius erst einmal innerweltlich auf die richtige Bahn zu bringen, vor allem, seine Vorstellungen zu reinigen, und hierbei kann auch auf die hellenistische Philosophie zurückgegriffen werden, insoweit sie als Vorbereitung auf die im platonischen Sinne eigentliche Philosophie dienen kann, weswegen Erler diese Funktion als "praeparatio platonica" bezeichnet. Neben dieser Aneignung hellenistischen philosophischen Gutes als propädeutischer Vorübung gibt es aber naturgemäß auch Felder, in denen eine Abgrenzung unvermeidlich ist.

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1519","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1519,"authors_free":[{"id":2635,"entry_id":1519,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2636,"entry_id":1519,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":339,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","free_first_name":"Therese","free_last_name":"Fuhrer","norm_person":{"id":339,"first_name":"Therese","last_name":"Fuhrer","full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117693804","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2637,"entry_id":1519,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Sp\u00e4tantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae')","main_title":{"title":"Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Sp\u00e4tantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae')"},"abstract":" Rainer Thiel (Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios\u2019 Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion, 93-103) analysiert pr\u00e4zise, wie Simplikios in seinem Kommentar zu Epiktets Encheiridion den Wert der stoischen Ethik bestimmt: die Befolgung des dort Gesagten sei Voraussetzung f\u00fcr den eigentlichen philosophischen Aufstieg. Auch hier erscheint hellenistische Philosophie also als prop\u00e4deutische Vorstufe, wobei Simplikios - wie Thiel zu Recht hervorhebt - freilich immer auch die Differenzen zwischen Epiktet und neuplatonischen Auffassungen benennt, was er zu seiner Zeit bereits in einer zur\u00fcckhaltenden, unpolemischen Form tun kann. Von einer anderen Seite her kommt Michael Erler (Philosophie als Therapie \u2014 Hellenistische Philosophie als praeparatio philosophica im Platonismus der Sp\u00e4tantike, 105-22) - auch gest\u00fctzt auf die Forschungen des Ehepaars Hadot - f\u00fcr Simplikios' Kommentar zu demselben Ergebnis (115: \"eine gleichsam verschriftlichte Form schulm\u00e4\u00dfiger Vorbereitung auf das platonische Philosophiestudium\") und gewinnt hieraus f\u00fcr Boethius' Consolatio Philosophiae eine \u00fcberzeugende Erkl\u00e4rung f\u00fcr das Ph\u00e4nomen, da\u00df stoisches Gedankengut in den ersten drei B\u00fcchern eine deutliche Rolle spielt, um danach in den Hintergrund zu treten. Indem Erler Boethius' Schrift in den Kontext platonischer Schulpraxis des allm\u00e4hlichen Aufsteigens zur Erkenntnis r\u00fcckt, vermag er verst\u00e4ndlich zu machen, was der rein literarische Vergleich mit anderer Konsolationsliteratur nicht zu erkl\u00e4ren vermochte. In der ersten Werkh\u00e4lfte geht es darum, den noch ganz im irdischen Leben gefangenen Boethius erst einmal innerweltlich auf die richtige Bahn zu bringen, vor allem, seine Vorstellungen zu reinigen, und hierbei kann auch auf die hellenistische Philosophie zur\u00fcckgegriffen werden, insoweit sie als Vorbereitung auf die im platonischen Sinne eigentliche Philosophie dienen kann, weswegen Erler diese Funktion als \"praeparatio platonica\" bezeichnet. Neben dieser Aneignung hellenistischen philosophischen Gutes als prop\u00e4deutischer Vor\u00fcbung gibt es aber naturgem\u00e4\u00df auch Felder, in denen eine Abgrenzung unvermeidlich ist.","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NeFv0yyCaNc0UCn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":339,"full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1519,"section_of":324,"pages":"105-122","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":324,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Sp\u00e4tantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fuhrer\/Erler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Review by T. Runia: As a generalization it is often remarked that the poor state of our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, based almost exclusively on reports and fragments, is due to the decline of interest in this philosophy during the period of late antiquity. After the schools had closed down by the beginning of the 3rd century C.E., Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean writings ceased to circulate widely, and in the end disappeared completely. Of course the end result of this process cannot be disputed. These writings have simply disappeared and, short of a miracle, they will not resurface.\r\n\r\nBut the process certainly took longer and was less radical in its earlier stages than is often thought. Late ancient philosophers and theologians in many cases still had a considerable knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy and used that knowledge to good effect in their own writings.\r\n\r\nThe theme of the reception of Hellenistic philosophy in late antiquity is the subject of the book under review, which contains fifteen studies originally presented at a conference in Trier in 1997. The studies are in German, with two exceptions, a paper in Italian and one in English. They have been prepared by a group of young scholars, mainly in their 30's and 40's, who in most cases have taken up positions in German and Swiss universities during the past decade or so.\r\n\r\nReviewing the various studies, one cannot but help noticing a marked similarity of method. The subjects treated are on the whole fairly limited in scope, and often concentrate on a particular author and a particular text. The detailed treatment is usually prefaced by an introductory section, which places the subject in a wider context, for example by tracing its development from the end of the Hellenistic period to the time of the author being discussed.These introductory sections can sometimes be very entertaining and informative (as in the case of the article of Christoph Riedweg, who points out remarkable correspondences between the period of late antiquity and our own time), but can also be too much simply a catalogue of authors and texts (as in the case of the survey of Epicureanism from Hadrian to Lactantius in the article by Jochem Althoff). The end result is that we have fifteen small but well-featured islands standing out in the broader sea of the book's subject.\r\n\r\nThe brief introduction competently but very succinctly outlines three connecting themes:\r\n\r\n The role of the Stoa and Epicureanism in Platonist philosophy.\r\n Scepticism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism in Christian literature.\r\n Doctrines of the Hellenistic philosophical schools as general cultural knowledge (Bildungsgut).\r\n\r\nBut no real attempt is made to cover the subject in more general terms. This is increasingly the method of such selective conference volumes. In spite of the general title, it is primarily a book for specialists.\r\n\r\nThe fifteen papers can be more or less divided into the three thematic categories noted above. Four concentrate on Hellenistic themes in later Platonism: Dominic O'Meara on Epicurus Neoplatonicus, Rainer Thiel and Michael Erler on the preparatory role of Hellenistic (and especially Stoic) ethics, Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel on Proclus' doctrine of the origin of evil and its Hellenistic antecedents. Christoph Riedweg, by investigating Julian's use of Stoic and Platonic argumentation in his anti-Christian polemic, bridges the gap with the eight contributions which concentrate on Patristic authors.\r\n\r\nThe intellectual dominance of Augustine is illustrated by the fact that no less than five contributions concentrate on his writings: Maria Bettetini on the background to De musica (very little Hellenistic philosophy here), Karin Schlapbach on Ciceronian and Neoplatonist elements in the proarmia of Contra Academicos I & II, Sabine Harwardt on Stoic argumentation in De beata vita, Christoph Horn on Augustine's moral philosophy in relation to Greek virtue ethics, Therese Fuhrer on the Hellenistic epistemological background of Augustine's concept of faith.\r\n\r\nThe other three specifically Patristic contributions are on Amobius (philosophical themes in his apologetic argumentation, by Sabine Follinger), Lactantius (his use of Epicurus, by Jochem Althoff), and Prudentius (virtue against vice in the Psychomachia, by Carolin Oser-Grote).\r\n\r\nThe volume ends with two more general treatments. Karla Pollman attempts to trace two differing conceptions of fictionality\u2014the Platonic mimesis-model focused on the author and the Stoic signification-model focused more on the reader\u2014from Hellenistic philosophy to their adaptation in late ancient texts. Ulrich Eigler, in an ambitious and stimulating contribution, investigates the cultural context of the kind of amateur use of philosophy that we find, for example, in Jerome's writings. Of these fifteen articles, three stand out on account of the lucidity of their treatment and the importance of their subject. Christoph Horn's method is perhaps somewhat unusual, in that he focuses his treatment of Augustine's virtue ethics almost entirely on a point-by-point rebuttal of the position of the Swedish scholar of a previous generation, Gosta Hok, whom he accuses of interpreting Augustine in such a way as to make him a fideistic opponent of ancient rationalism. In actual fact, Augustine unreservedly takes over the basic theses of ancient ethical rationalism, but in his later years reserves it for followers of the \"true religion,\" without coming to a real discussion with its original Neoplatonist proponents.\r\n\r\nMany of Horn's points are well taken, but one wonders whether in this interpretation the gulf between Augustine's professed method of selective spoliatio and his actual practice of largely uncritical appropriation (as proposed by Horn) does not become too great. What Augustine objects to in ancient rationalism is its intellectual arrogance, the refusal to submit to the yoke of faith. This position seems to me to have revisionary aspirations. The struggle between \"catholic\" and \"protestant\" readings of Augustine is likely to continue.\r\n\r\nIn her paper on the epistemological background to Augustine's conception of faith, Therese Fuhrer argues that it is to be found in the Stoic theory in which assent (adsensio, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) precedes both knowledge (scientia, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7, based on comprehensio, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) and belief (opinio, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1). A priori, this seems not so likely, since the role assigned to volition in the two conceptions is quite different. Nevertheless, Fuhrer manages to show that both in terms of structure and terminology this background does have illuminating features.\r\n\r\nA difficulty remains that no texts indicating an explicit relation between the act of faith and epistemological assent can be found until two passages in very late writings. This article illustrates how difficult it is to pin Augustine down in relation to specific philosophical theories. It is his powerful transforming drive that makes his views so distinctive and so hard to categorize in \"doxographical\" terms.\r\n\r\nThe article of Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel is recommended reading for anyone interested in how ancient philosophers working within the tradition of classical ontology wrestled with the problem of evil. Not only does it give an excellent overview of the dilemmas involved and the solutions attempted, but it also draws on the new translation of Proclus' De malorum substantia, which the authors are preparing.\r\n\r\nThey show how Proclus tries to find a way out of the classical dilemma in which one either has to detract from providence or not take evil seriously enough as a real aspect of the world. Proclus' solution is intriguing but very risky. Any attribution of evil to the first cause is unacceptable, but in the light of Neoplatonist ontological monism this means that one has to understand evil as an (ultimately) uncaused event.\r\n\r\nNot only is this very awkward in light of the Platonic principle nihil fit sine causa, which Proclus fully endorses, but it also seems to reduce evil to a kind of accidental epiphenomenon. Opsomer and Steel argue that Proclus may have found a third way between the Stoa and the Peripatos (which reserves providence for the divine realm only), but at a considerable cost. They tentatively conclude that the Stoa continues to hold the last word in this debate, and that theodicy may well be the worst legacy that this school has left to subsequent philosophy. This is perhaps a somewhat disappointing result, but no better illustration could be given of the importance of studying Hellenistic philosophy as a background for late ancient and patristic philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn furthering this study, the book under review makes a valuable contribution. The volume also shows, as the product of predominantly young scholars, that the future of scholarship in the area of later ancient and Patristic philosophy is in good hands.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Wi5qXtXGHesjYwT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":324,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}

Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius, 1998
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise (Ed.), Lozachmeur, Hélène (Ed.)
Title Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1998
Published in Proche-Orient Ancien. Temps vécu, temps pensé
Pages 223-234
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise , Lozachmeur, Hélène
Translator(s)
Cette enquête rapide a fait apparaître cinq thèses fondamentales : 1. toute mesure confère l’unité à ce qu’elle rassemble, et le fait participer, à son niveau, de l’Un lui-même ; 2. le temps, image de l’éternité (Platon), est l ’une des « mesures rassemblantes » qui sauvent le sensible du désastre ontologique ; il est, plus proprement, la « mesure de l’extension (paratasis) de l’être » ; 3. le temps est une quantité continue (Aristote), et il est mesuré par des mesures naturelles intrinsèques ; 4. la catégorie du pote, qui est distincte du temps et de la quantité, est définie par une pure relation non convertible au temps lui-même, ou à ses « mesures naturelles » ; 5. ainsi est pensée la datation d ’un événement historique (comme la bataille de Salamine), tandis que la taxis agissante du temps ordonne, conjoint et distingue les événements historiques (la guerre de Troie et la guerre du Péloponnèse ne se confondent pas). [conclusion, p. 234]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"677","_score":null,"_source":{"id":677,"authors_free":[{"id":997,"entry_id":677,"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":998,"entry_id":677,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":190,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet, Fran\u00e7oise","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7oise","free_last_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet","norm_person":{"id":190,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7oise ","last_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet","full_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet, Fran\u00e7oise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138558841","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":999,"entry_id":677,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":191,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lozachmeur, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","free_first_name":"H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","free_last_name":"Lozachmeur","norm_person":{"id":191,"first_name":"H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","last_name":"Lozachmeur","full_name":"Lozachmeur, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius"},"abstract":"Cette enqu\u00eate rapide a fait appara\u00eetre cinq th\u00e8ses fondamentales : 1. toute mesure conf\u00e8re l\u2019unit\u00e9 \u00e0 ce qu\u2019elle rassemble, et le fait participer, \u00e0 son niveau, de l\u2019Un lui-m\u00eame ; 2. le temps, image de l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 (Platon), est l \u2019une des \u00ab mesures rassemblantes \u00bb qui sauvent le sensible du d\u00e9sastre ontologique ; il est, plus proprement, la \u00ab mesure de l\u2019extension (paratasis) de l\u2019\u00eatre \u00bb ; 3. le temps est une quantit\u00e9 continue (Aristote), et il est mesur\u00e9 par des mesures naturelles intrins\u00e8ques ; 4. la cat\u00e9gorie du pote, qui est distincte du temps et de la quantit\u00e9, est d\u00e9finie par une pure relation non convertible au temps lui-m\u00eame, ou \u00e0 ses \u00ab mesures naturelles \u00bb ; 5. ainsi est pens\u00e9e la datation d \u2019un \u00e9v\u00e9nement historique (comme la bataille de Salamine), tandis que la taxis agissante du temps ordonne, conjoint et distingue les \u00e9v\u00e9nements historiques (la guerre de Troie et la guerre du P\u00e9loponn\u00e8se ne se confondent pas). [conclusion, p. 234]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Bux3xGV4iDU4pJh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":190,"full_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet, Fran\u00e7oise ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":191,"full_name":"Lozachmeur, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":677,"section_of":366,"pages":"223-234","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":366,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Proche-Orient Ancien. Temps v\u00e9cu, temps pens\u00e9","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Briquel-Chatonnet1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1998","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5BD9RWhwMU84oxi","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":366,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Maisonneuve","series":"Antiquit\u00e9s s\u00e9mitiques","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}

La fonction des prologues exégétiques dans la pensée pédagogique néoplatonicienne, 1998
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Dubois, Jean-Daniel (Ed.), Roussel, Bernard (Ed.)
Title La fonction des prologues exégétiques dans la pensée pédagogique néoplatonicienne
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1998
Published in Entrer en matière. Les prologues
Pages 209-245
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Dubois, Jean-Daniel , Roussel, Bernard
Translator(s)
La philosophie néoplatonicienne a développé une doctrine de la relation pédagogique entre le Maître (image visible du Bien) et les étudiants (âmes imparfaites), qui se fonde sur la définition même de la philosophie comme « assimilation à Dieu », et qui inscrit dans une perspective anagogique la pratique de l'exégèse et de l'enseignement. Dans un tel cadre, la question du « prologue » s*entend en trois sens 1) la représentation de la philosophie comme unité organique assigne à la logique aristotélicienne un statut de « commencement », à titre de « partie instrumentale » ; et le traité des Catégories est, à l'intérieur de cette « partie instrumentale », et au début du cursus néoplatonicien des études, le « proème » delà logique et de la philosophie tout entière ; 2) il existe d'autre part un véritable « genre littéraire » des introductions exégétiques, caractérisé par des schémas scolastiques de questions préalables ; et l'organisation du cursus commence par l'emboîtement de plusieurs introductions : à la philosophie en général, à la philosophie d'Aristote, à la philosophie de Platon, à chaque œuvre particulière de Porphyre (Isagogè), d'Aristote et de Platon ; 3) enfin, dans le cadre de l'explication de chaque œuvre singulière, les prologues exégétiques (et les commentaires eux-mêmes) peuvent comporter une description ou une légitimation du prologue de l'œuvre commentée : c'est le cas pour le traité aristotélicien des Catégories. L'application de critères rhétoriques d'origine platonicienne conduit à s'interroger sur la fonction et la liaison organique de ce prologue de l'œuvre commentée avec l'œuvre elle-même envisagée comme totalité organique. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"685","_score":null,"_source":{"id":685,"authors_free":[{"id":1016,"entry_id":685,"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":1017,"entry_id":685,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":188,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Dubois, Jean-Daniel","free_first_name":"Jean-Daniel","free_last_name":"Dubois","norm_person":{"id":188,"first_name":"Jean-Daniel ","last_name":"Dubois","full_name":"Dubois, Jean-Daniel ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/104137304X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1018,"entry_id":685,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":189,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Roussel, Bernard","free_first_name":"Bernard","free_last_name":"Roussel","norm_person":{"id":189,"first_name":"Bernard ","last_name":"Roussel","full_name":"Roussel, Bernard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032386932","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La fonction des prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques dans la pens\u00e9e p\u00e9dagogique n\u00e9oplatonicienne","main_title":{"title":"La fonction des prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques dans la pens\u00e9e p\u00e9dagogique n\u00e9oplatonicienne"},"abstract":"La philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne a d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 une doctrine de la relation p\u00e9dagogique entre le Ma\u00eetre (image visible du Bien) et les \u00e9tudiants (\u00e2mes imparfaites), qui se fonde sur la d\u00e9finition m\u00eame de la philosophie comme \u00ab assimilation \u00e0 Dieu \u00bb, et qui inscrit dans une perspective anagogique la pratique de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et de l'enseignement. Dans un tel cadre, la question du \u00ab prologue \u00bb s*entend en trois sens 1) la repr\u00e9sentation de la philosophie comme unit\u00e9 organique assigne \u00e0 la logique aristot\u00e9licienne un statut de \u00ab commencement \u00bb, \u00e0 titre de \u00ab partie instrumentale \u00bb ; et le trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories est, \u00e0 l'int\u00e9rieur de cette \u00ab partie instrumentale \u00bb, et au d\u00e9but du cursus n\u00e9oplatonicien des \u00e9tudes, le \u00ab pro\u00e8me \u00bb del\u00e0 logique et de la philosophie tout enti\u00e8re ; 2) il existe d'autre part un v\u00e9ritable \u00ab genre litt\u00e9raire \u00bb des introductions ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques, caract\u00e9ris\u00e9 par des sch\u00e9mas scolastiques de questions pr\u00e9alables ; et l'organisation du cursus commence par l'embo\u00eetement de plusieurs introductions : \u00e0 la philosophie en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, \u00e0 la philosophie d'Aristote, \u00e0 la philosophie de Platon, \u00e0 chaque \u0153uvre particuli\u00e8re de Porphyre (Isagog\u00e8), d'Aristote et de Platon ; 3) enfin, dans le cadre de l'explication de chaque \u0153uvre singuli\u00e8re, les prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques (et les commentaires eux-m\u00eames) peuvent comporter une description ou une l\u00e9gitimation du prologue de l'\u0153uvre comment\u00e9e : c'est le cas pour le trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories. L'application de crit\u00e8res rh\u00e9toriques d'origine platonicienne conduit \u00e0 s'interroger sur la fonction et la liaison organique de ce prologue de l'\u0153uvre comment\u00e9e avec l'\u0153uvre elle-m\u00eame envisag\u00e9e comme totalit\u00e9 organique. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qogll7IhtIDqqda","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":188,"full_name":"Dubois, Jean-Daniel ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":189,"full_name":"Roussel, Bernard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":685,"section_of":371,"pages":"209-245","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":371,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Entrer en mati\u00e8re. Les prologues","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Dubois1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1998","abstract":"Vingt-huit auteurs ont \u00e9tudi\u00e9 les pages introductives d'oeuvres philosophiques et th\u00e9ologiques de l'Antiquit\u00e9 et du Moyen Age, de Bibles et de commentaires, manuscrits et imprim\u00e9s, r\u00e9dig\u00e9s par des juifs et des chr\u00e9tiens jusqu'au XVIIe si\u00e8cle. Ils montrent comment ces pages d\u00e9finissent des \"orientations herm\u00e9neutiques\", des \"protocoles de lecture\" ou encore tissent des liens avec les lecteurs. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GzDhLGjpBoVziqc","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":371,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre d\u2019\u00c9tudes des Religions du Livre, Cerf","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}

Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD), 1998
By: Wildberg, Christian, Craig, Edward (Ed.)
Title Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD)
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1998
Published in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 8)
Pages 788-791
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wildberg, Christian
Editor(s) Craig, Edward
Translator(s)
Simplicius of Cilicia, a Greek Neoplatonic philosopher and polymath, lived in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He is the author of the most learned commentaries on Aristotle produced in antiquity, works which rest upon the accumulated accomplishments of ancient Greek philosophy and science. In them he gives numerous illuminating references and explanations that not only lead to a fuller understanding of Aristotle, but also allow one to reconstruct the history of the interpretation and criticism of Aristotelian doctrines in antiquity. The main principle that guides Simplicius’ exegesis is the conviction that most Greek philosophers, including some Presocratics, can be brought into agreement with Neoplatonism. Simplicius adduces copious quotations to prove his point, thereby supplying us with substantial fragments from lost works of thinkers like Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Eudemus and the Stoics. A devout pagan, Simplicius sought to defend traditional Greek religion and philosophy against the oppressive dominance of Christianity. His commentaries have influenced the reception and interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy ever since. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"717","_score":null,"_source":{"id":717,"authors_free":[{"id":1066,"entry_id":717,"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":1067,"entry_id":717,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":470,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Craig, Edward","free_first_name":"Edward","free_last_name":"Craig","norm_person":{"id":470,"first_name":"Edward","last_name":"Craig","full_name":"Craig, Edward","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1079630643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD)"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia, a Greek Neoplatonic philosopher and polymath, lived in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He is the author of the most learned commentaries on Aristotle produced in antiquity, works which rest upon the accumulated accomplishments of ancient Greek philosophy and science. In them he gives numerous illuminating references and explanations that not only lead to a fuller understanding of Aristotle, but also allow one to reconstruct the history of the interpretation and criticism of Aristotelian doctrines in antiquity. The main principle that guides Simplicius\u2019 exegesis is the conviction that most Greek philosophers, including some Presocratics, can be brought into agreement with Neoplatonism. Simplicius adduces copious quotations to prove his point, thereby supplying us with substantial fragments from lost works of thinkers like Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Eudemus and the Stoics. A devout pagan, Simplicius sought to defend traditional Greek religion and philosophy against the oppressive dominance of Christianity. His commentaries have influenced the reception and interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy ever since. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XZqDDiQkn8uEw2C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":470,"full_name":"Craig, Edward","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":717,"section_of":716,"pages":"788-791","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":716,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 8)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Edward1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online (REP Online) is the largest and most comprehensive resource available for all those involved in the study of philosophy. It is a trusted source of quality information, providing access to over 2,800 articles that have been edited for level and consistency by a team of renowned subject experts.\u00a0\r\nRegularly updated with new and revised articles it is the ideal entry point for further discovery and research, clearly organised and with over 25,000 cross-references linking themes, concepts and philosophers. It is also an ideal reference source for those in subjects related to philosophy, such as politics, psychology, economics, anthropology, religion and literature. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hd71FhU5RvTpqmA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":716,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}

Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More, 1998
By: Schenkeveld, Dirk M., Van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. (Ed.)
Title Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1998
Published in Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources
Pages 67-80
Categories no categories
Author(s) Schenkeveld, Dirk M.
Editor(s) Van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.
Translator(s)
In the list of Theophrastus’ works on rhetoric and poetics as given in the new collection under 666 FHS&G one finds twenty-four items, some of them (2 and 17) subdivided into (a) and (b). Most of these titles come from the list of Theophrastus’ works in Diogenes Laertius 5.42- 50. In all but five cases (2, 6,17, 22 and 23, the last two on comedy and on the ludicrous respectively), Diogenes is our only source for them. The responsible editor, W. W. Fortenbaugh, also refers to several titles of works which other scholars had placed in the group of rhetorical trea­ tises, but his classification is different. This variation is explained by the fact that Diogenes’ list does not give any indication of the type of work to which any title belongs, which leaves scholars free to devise their own arrangement.In what follows I will discuss the place or the wording of a few titles, and especially that of 17b, thereby focusing on the nature and contents of 683 FHS&G. The editors have declined to arrange the fragments ac­ cording to known works (cp. vol. I, pp. 7-8). Nevertheless, I will argue, even by their arrangement of the titles they sometimes suggest too much, or too little. [Introduction, p. 67]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1038","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1038,"authors_free":[{"id":1573,"entry_id":1038,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":397,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schenkeveld, Dirk M.","free_first_name":"Dirk M.","free_last_name":"Schenkeveld","norm_person":{"id":397,"first_name":"Dirk M.","last_name":"Schenkeveld","full_name":"Schenkeveld, Dirk M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119331691","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1574,"entry_id":1038,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"Van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More"},"abstract":"In the list of Theophrastus\u2019 works on rhetoric and poetics as given in \r\nthe new collection under 666 FHS&G one finds twenty-four items, \r\nsome of them (2 and 17) subdivided into (a) and (b). Most of these titles \r\ncome from the list of Theophrastus\u2019 works in Diogenes Laertius 5.42- \r\n50. In all but five cases (2, 6,17, 22 and 23, the last two on comedy and \r\non the ludicrous respectively), Diogenes is our only source for them. \r\nThe responsible editor, W. W. Fortenbaugh, also refers to several titles \r\nof works which other scholars had placed in the group of rhetorical trea\u00ad\r\ntises, but his classification is different. This variation is explained by the \r\nfact that Diogenes\u2019 list does not give any indication of the type of work \r\nto which any title belongs, which leaves scholars free to devise their \r\nown arrangement.In what follows I will discuss the place or the wording of a few titles, \r\nand especially that of 17b, thereby focusing on the nature and contents \r\nof 683 FHS&G. The editors have declined to arrange the fragments ac\u00ad\r\ncording to known works (cp. vol. I, pp. 7-8). Nevertheless, I will argue, \r\neven by their arrangement of the titles they sometimes suggest too \r\nmuch, or too little. [Introduction, p. 67]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kt2zxAT8hYImXQS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":397,"full_name":"Schenkeveld, Dirk M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1038,"section_of":1298,"pages":"67-80","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}

Le début d’une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A/B de Théophraste, 1998
By: Laks, André, van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. (Ed.), Raalte, Marlein van (Ed.)
Title Le début d’une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A/B de Théophraste
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1998
Published in Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources
Pages 143-169
Categories no categories
Author(s) Laks, André
Editor(s) van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. , Raalte, Marlein van
Translator(s)
Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre de la Physique d’Aristote comporte trois mentions de Théophraste, dont une brève référence (142 FHS&G) et deux citations textuelles (143 et 144B). Nous possédons en outre une paraphrase de la seconde citation dans la partie correspondante du commentaire de Philopon (144A). Nous avons toutes les raisons de penser que ces quatre passages dérivent du premier livre de la Physique de Théophraste. Si 144A mentionne seulement le titre général de l’ouvrage de Théophraste (« dans son propre traité physique »), 144B précise : « au début de ses livres physiques ». La citation de Théophraste, en 143, est introduite par la mention moins précise, mais en l’occurrence parfaitement adéquate (puisque l’extrait, comme nous le verrons dans un instant, suivait sans doute 144A/B) : « dans le premier livre de ses traités physiques ». Le contenu corrobore ces indications. 144A/B concerne en effet le paragraphe initial du traité d’Aristote (Physique, 184a10-16), qui assigne pour première tâche à la science physique de déterminer quels en sont les principes ; 142 et 143 portent sur la suite immédiate (184a16-b14), qui introduit la distinction entre « ce qui est plus connu pour nous » et « ce qui est plus connu par nature ». Les éditeurs ont mis 142/143 en tête, sans doute parce que, énonçant des propositions méthodologiques sur le statut de l’enquête physique, ils peuvent sembler poser les préalables, alors que 144A/B mettent déjà en jeu des propositions physiques particulières. Mais ceci peut avoir été un effet de l’exégèse de Théophraste, fortement marquée, comme nous le verrons plus loin, par une tendance systématisante. À condition d’inverser l’ordre adopté par les éditeurs (c’est-à-dire d’admettre que le fragment cité dans 144B précédait dans l’original celui que rapporte 143), l’ensemble offre les linéaments d’un commentaire continu de la première page de la Physique d’Aristote. L’analyse qui suit tente d’en restituer les traits saillants. [introduction p. 143-144]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"883","_score":null,"_source":{"id":883,"authors_free":[{"id":1298,"entry_id":883,"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}},{"id":1299,"entry_id":883,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1300,"entry_id":883,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":154,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","free_first_name":"Marlein van","free_last_name":"Raalte","norm_person":{"id":154,"first_name":"Marlein van","last_name":"Raalte","full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172515270","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le d\u00e9but d\u2019une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A\/B de Th\u00e9ophraste","main_title":{"title":"Le d\u00e9but d\u2019une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A\/B de Th\u00e9ophraste"},"abstract":"Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre de la Physique d\u2019Aristote comporte trois mentions de Th\u00e9ophraste, dont une br\u00e8ve r\u00e9f\u00e9rence (142 FHS&G) et deux citations textuelles (143 et 144B). Nous poss\u00e9dons en outre une paraphrase de la seconde citation dans la partie correspondante du commentaire de Philopon (144A). Nous avons toutes les raisons de penser que ces quatre passages d\u00e9rivent du premier livre de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste. Si 144A mentionne seulement le titre g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de l\u2019ouvrage de Th\u00e9ophraste (\u00ab dans son propre trait\u00e9 physique \u00bb), 144B pr\u00e9cise : \u00ab au d\u00e9but de ses livres physiques \u00bb.\r\n\r\nLa citation de Th\u00e9ophraste, en 143, est introduite par la mention moins pr\u00e9cise, mais en l\u2019occurrence parfaitement ad\u00e9quate (puisque l\u2019extrait, comme nous le verrons dans un instant, suivait sans doute 144A\/B) : \u00ab dans le premier livre de ses trait\u00e9s physiques \u00bb. Le contenu corrobore ces indications. 144A\/B concerne en effet le paragraphe initial du trait\u00e9 d\u2019Aristote (Physique, 184a10-16), qui assigne pour premi\u00e8re t\u00e2che \u00e0 la science physique de d\u00e9terminer quels en sont les principes ; 142 et 143 portent sur la suite imm\u00e9diate (184a16-b14), qui introduit la distinction entre \u00ab ce qui est plus connu pour nous \u00bb et \u00ab ce qui est plus connu par nature \u00bb.\r\n\r\nLes \u00e9diteurs ont mis 142\/143 en t\u00eate, sans doute parce que, \u00e9non\u00e7ant des propositions m\u00e9thodologiques sur le statut de l\u2019enqu\u00eate physique, ils peuvent sembler poser les pr\u00e9alables, alors que 144A\/B mettent d\u00e9j\u00e0 en jeu des propositions physiques particuli\u00e8res. Mais ceci peut avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 un effet de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Th\u00e9ophraste, fortement marqu\u00e9e, comme nous le verrons plus loin, par une tendance syst\u00e9matisante. \u00c0 condition d\u2019inverser l\u2019ordre adopt\u00e9 par les \u00e9diteurs (c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire d\u2019admettre que le fragment cit\u00e9 dans 144B pr\u00e9c\u00e9dait dans l\u2019original celui que rapporte 143), l\u2019ensemble offre les lin\u00e9aments d\u2019un commentaire continu de la premi\u00e8re page de la Physique d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nL\u2019analyse qui suit tente d\u2019en restituer les traits saillants. [introduction p. 143-144]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yDW08T1lG0G9q6B","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":154,"full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":883,"section_of":1298,"pages":"143-169","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}

Pluralism after Parmenides, 1998
By: Curd, Patricia
Title Pluralism after Parmenides
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1998
Published in The Legacy of Parmenides. Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought
Pages 127-179
Categories no categories
Author(s) Curd, Patricia
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In this chapter I turn from Parmenides to two of his successors, examining the Pluralist theories of Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in order to explore the influence of Parmenides on these later thinkers. I argue that this influence appears in two fundamental aspects of their theories: in their conceptions of the fundamental entities that are the genuine beings of their cosmologies, and in the form (mixture and Separation of the basic entities) these cosmologies take. I begin with a short discussion of the question of Pluralism itself and then turn first to Anaxagoras and then to Empedocles. [Introduction, pp. 127 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"910","_score":null,"_source":{"id":910,"authors_free":[{"id":1340,"entry_id":910,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":58,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Curd, Patricia","free_first_name":"Patricia","free_last_name":"Curd","norm_person":{"id":58,"first_name":"Patricia","last_name":"Curd","full_name":"Curd, Patricia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13843980X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pluralism after Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Pluralism after Parmenides"},"abstract":"In this chapter I turn from Parmenides to two of his successors, examining the Pluralist theories of Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in order to explore the \r\ninfluence of Parmenides on these later thinkers. I argue that this influence \r\nappears in two fundamental aspects of their theories: in their conceptions of \r\nthe fundamental entities that are the genuine beings of their cosmologies, and \r\nin the form (mixture and Separation of the basic entities) these cosmologies \r\ntake. I begin with a short discussion of the question of Pluralism itself and \r\nthen turn first to Anaxagoras and then to Empedocles. [Introduction, pp. 127 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rPBPoCGoPofFCOl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":58,"full_name":"Curd, Patricia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":910,"section_of":1284,"pages":"127-179","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1284,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Legacy of Parmenides. Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought ","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Curd1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Parmenides of Elea was the most important and influential philosopher before Plato. Patricia Curd here reinterprets Parmenides' views and offers a new account of his relation to his predecessors and successors. On the traditional interpretation, Parmenides argues that generation, destruction, and change are unreal and that only one thing exists. He therefore rejected as impossible the scientific inquiry practiced by the earlier Presocratic philosophers. But the philosophers who came after Parmenides attempted to explain natural change and they assumed the reality of a plurality of basic entities. Thus, on the traditional interpretation, the later Presocratics either ignored or contradicted his arguments. In this book, Patricia Curd argues that Parmenides sought to reform rather than to reject scientific inquiry and offers a more coherent account of his influence on the philosophers who came after him.\r\n\r\nThe Legacy of Parmenides provides a detailed examination of Parmenides' arguments, considering his connection to earlier Greek thought and how his account of what-is could serve as a model for later philosophers. It then considers the theories of those who came after him, including the Pluralists (Anaxagoras and Empedocles), the Atomists (Leucippus and Democritus), the later Eleatics (Zeno and Melissus), and the later Presocratics Philolaus of Croton and Diogenes of Apollonia. The book closes with a discussion of the importance of Parmenides' views for the development of Plato's Theory of Forms. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ySFJ6JlG0mDNxxJ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1284,"pubplace":"Princeton","publisher":"Princeton University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}

Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature, 1998
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de, Raalte, Marlein van (Ed.), van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. (Ed.)
Title Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1998
Published in Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources
Pages 171-189
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s) Raalte, Marlein van , van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.
Translator(s)
In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle’s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things. Both Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle—namely, “all physical things have principles.” Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things. Unlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9–28) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus’ commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be. This leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus’ insertion (144A 9–28) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument. In this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1297","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1297,"authors_free":[{"id":1890,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Haas, Frans A. J. de","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"Haas, de","norm_person":{"id":153,"first_name":"Frans A. J.","last_name":"de Haas","full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128837020","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1988,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":154,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","free_first_name":"Marlein","free_last_name":"Raalte, van","norm_person":{"id":154,"first_name":"Marlein van","last_name":"Raalte","full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172515270","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1989,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature"},"abstract":"In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things.\r\n\r\nBoth Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle\u2014namely, \u201call physical things have principles.\u201d Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things.\r\n\r\nUnlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9\u201328) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus\u2019 commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be.\r\n\r\nThis leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus\u2019 insertion (144A 9\u201328) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5LsO2XY3SoVzgrW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":154,"full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1297,"section_of":1298,"pages":"171-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}

The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition, 1997
By: Gaskin, Richard , Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1997
Published in Aristotle and after
Pages 91-107
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gaskin, Richard
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
As far as traditional classifications go, the Stoics count as materialists. But it is notorious that there were four things in their world-view which do not fit this caracterization: time, place, the void and the so-called ‘sayables', or lekta (SE AM 10.218 = FDS 720). Lekta consist of three main kinds of quasi-linguistic item: centrally, simple propositions (as well as certain non-assertoric, but grammatically autonomous, items) are ‘complete’ lekta (DL 7 .6-8 = FDS 696, 874; SE AM 8.70-74). From these propositions, more complex ‘complete’ lekta maybe constructed, such as conditionals (DL 7.71) or syllogisms (DL 7.63). And within the structure of complete lekta, ‘incomplete’ lekta, such as predicates, maybe discerned. I call lekta quasi-linguistic, rather than linguistic, because, as we learn from an important passage in Sextus (AM 8.11-13 = FDS 67), the Stoics distinguished lekta both from language and from physical objects in the world. Hence linguistic items such as the verb (rhêma) ‘writes’ and the complete sentence (logos) ‘Socrates writes’ should be kept rigorously apart from their corresponding lekta - the predicate (katigorema) writes and the complete proposition (axidma) Socrates writes - which the linguistic expressions signify (semainein: SE AM 8.11 - 12, DL 7.56, 58, 65). In this paper I shall examine the Stoic treatment of the main constituents of the complete lekton: cases and predicates. I shall argue that cases are, like predicates, (incomplete) lekta, and that the verbal noun played a central role in Stoic thinking about lekta. In the light of these reflections, I shall conclude with some speculative remarks on the unity of the proposition. [Introduction, p. 91]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1177","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1177,"authors_free":[{"id":1751,"entry_id":1177,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":132,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","free_first_name":"Richard ","free_last_name":"Gaskin","norm_person":{"id":132,"first_name":"Richard ","last_name":"Gaskin","full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1049853571","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2358,"entry_id":1177,"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":"The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition","main_title":{"title":"The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition"},"abstract":"As far as traditional classifications go, the Stoics count as materialists. But it is notorious that there were four things in their world-view which do not fit this caracterization: time, place, the void and the so-called \u2018sayables', or lekta (SE AM 10.218 = FDS 720). Lekta consist of three main kinds of quasi-linguistic item: centrally, simple propositions (as well as certain non-assertoric, but grammatically autonomous, items) are \u2018complete\u2019 lekta (DL 7 .6-8 = FDS 696, 874; SE AM 8.70-74). From these propositions, more complex \u2018complete\u2019 lekta maybe constructed, such as conditionals (DL 7.71) or syllogisms (DL 7.63). And within the structure of complete lekta, \u2018incomplete\u2019 lekta, such as predicates, maybe discerned. I call lekta quasi-linguistic, rather than linguistic, because, as we learn from an important passage in Sextus (AM 8.11-13 = FDS 67), the Stoics distinguished lekta both from language and from physical objects in the world. Hence linguistic items such as the verb (rh\u00eama) \u2018writes\u2019 and the complete sentence (logos) \u2018Socrates writes\u2019 should be kept rigorously apart from their corresponding lekta - the predicate (katigorema) writes and the complete proposition (axidma) Socrates writes - which the linguistic expressions signify (semainein: SE AM 8.11 - 12, DL 7.56, 58, 65). \r\nIn this paper I shall examine the Stoic treatment of the main constituents of the complete lekton: cases and predicates. I shall argue that cases are, like predicates, (incomplete) lekta, and that the verbal noun played a central role in Stoic thinking about lekta. In the light of these reflections, I shall conclude with some speculative remarks on the unity of the proposition. [Introduction, p. 91]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tocHWc6xfMEeg9C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":132,"full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1177,"section_of":199,"pages":"91-107","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8uyail9ZCl9wfr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}

Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition, 1997
By: Sedley, David N., Barnes, Jonathan (Ed.), Griffin, Miriam (Ed.)
Title Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1997
Published in Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome
Pages 110-129
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sedley, David N.
Editor(s) Barnes, Jonathan , Griffin, Miriam
Translator(s)
In this paper I shall be considering the emerge, or rather re-emerge, of Platonic commentary around the end of the Hellenistic age. That is the period which forms the essential background to our chief surviving specimens of the genre, the great fifth-century Platonic commentaries of Proclus. Specifically, I intend to examine why Platonic philosophy came to such a large extent to take the form of commentary, and how the resources of the commentary format were deployed for the task of establishing, preserving, and exploiting Plato's philosophical authority. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"647","_score":null,"_source":{"id":647,"authors_free":[{"id":926,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"David N.","free_last_name":"Sedley","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":927,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":928,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Griffin, Miriam","free_first_name":"Miriam","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall be considering the emerge, or rather re-emerge, of Platonic commentary around the end of the Hellenistic age. That is the period which forms the essential background to our chief surviving specimens of the genre, the great fifth-century Platonic commentaries of Proclus. Specifically, I intend to examine why Platonic philosophy came to such a large extent to take the form of commentary, and how the resources of the commentary format were deployed for the task of establishing, preserving, and exploiting Plato's philosophical authority. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KXHna6DA0dhoqno","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":647,"section_of":283,"pages":"110-129","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":283,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Barnes\/Griffin1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The mutual interaction of philosophy and Roman political and cultural life has aroused more and more interest in recent years among students of classical literature, Roman history, and ancient philosophy. In this volume, which gathers together some of the papers originally delivered at a series of seminars in the University of Oxford, scholars from all three disciplines explore the role of Platonism and Aristotelianism in Roman intellectual, cultural, and political life from the second century BC to the third century AD.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y4n6429uWaNLuD2","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":283,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}

A “New” Text of Alexander on the Soul’s Motion, 1997
By: Rashed, Marwan, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title A “New” Text of Alexander on the Soul’s Motion
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1997
Published in Aristotle and after
Pages 181-195
Categories no categories
Author(s) Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus’ criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: "and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus’ theory, either directly or through Aristotle’s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice. To conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows: The ‘Aristotelian’ claim of the intellect from without. Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move. Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity. Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles’ solution to Atticus’ criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes. Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus’ vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution. Thus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1061","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1061,"authors_free":[{"id":1610,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1611,"entry_id":1061,"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":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion","main_title":{"title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"},"abstract":"A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus\u2019 criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: \"and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)\". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus\u2019 theory, either directly or through Aristotle\u2019s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice.\r\n\r\nTo conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\n The \u2018Aristotelian\u2019 claim of the intellect from without.\r\n Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move.\r\n Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity.\r\n Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles\u2019 solution to Atticus\u2019 criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes.\r\n Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus\u2019 vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution.\r\n\r\nThus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/roAfpopRonK2aKn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1061,"section_of":199,"pages":"181-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8uyail9ZCl9wfr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}

Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof, 1997
By: Morrison, Donald R., Keßler, Eckhard (Ed.), Di Liscia, Daniel A. (Ed.), Methuen, Charlotte (Ed.)
Title Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1997
Published in Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition
Pages 1-22
Categories no categories
Author(s) Morrison, Donald R.
Editor(s) Keßler, Eckhard , Di Liscia, Daniel A. , Methuen, Charlotte
Translator(s)
In this paper I shall concentrate on a small but crucial episode in the development of one significant issue: the method by which the physicist acquires knowledge of the principles of physical things. n his commentary on the Physics, the sixth-century Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius puts forward sign-inference as a general method for acquiring first principles in physics: “Clearly, the grasp (gnosis) of the principles [of physical things] is through necessary signs (tekmeriodes) rather than apodeictic (apodeiktike)."... [p. 1]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"834","_score":null,"_source":{"id":834,"authors_free":[{"id":1238,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":266,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Morrison, Donald R.","free_first_name":"Donald R.","free_last_name":"Morisson","norm_person":{"id":266,"first_name":"Donald R.","last_name":"Morrison","full_name":"Morrison, Donald R.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/14341285X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2116,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":267,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","free_first_name":"Eckhard","free_last_name":"Ke\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":267,"first_name":"Eckhard","last_name":"Ke\u00dfler","full_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117756431","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2117,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":268,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","free_first_name":"Daniel A.","free_last_name":"Di Liscia","norm_person":{"id":268,"first_name":"Daniel A.","last_name":"Di Liscia","full_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140744282","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2118,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":269,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","free_first_name":"Charlotte","free_last_name":"Methuen","norm_person":{"id":269,"first_name":"Charlotte","last_name":"Methuen","full_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137191812","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall concentrate on a small but \r\ncrucial episode in the development of one significant issue: the method by \r\nwhich the physicist acquires knowledge of the principles of physical \r\nthings. n his commentary on the Physics, the sixth-century Neoplatonist \r\nphilosopher Simplicius puts forward sign-inference as a general method \r\nfor acquiring first principles in physics: \u201cClearly, the grasp (gnosis) of the \r\nprinciples [of physical things] is through necessary signs (tekmeriodes) \r\nrather than apodeictic (apodeiktike).\"... [p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zVO0hPY4wM83hSQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":266,"full_name":"Morrison, Donald R.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":267,"full_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":268,"full_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":269,"full_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":834,"section_of":298,"pages":"1-22","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Liscia1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The volume results from a seminar sponsored by the \u2019Foundation for Intellectual History\u2019 at the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenb\u00fcttel, in 1992. Starting with the theory of regressus as displayed in its most developed form by William Wallace, these papers enter the vast field of the Renaissance discussion on method as such in its historical and systematical context. This is confined neither to the notion of method in the strict sense, nor to the Renaissance in its exact historical limits, nor yet to the Aristotelian tradition as a well defined philosophical school, but requires a new scholarly approach. Thus - besides Galileo, Zabarella and their circles, which are regarded as being crucial for the \u2019emergence of modern science\u2019 in the end of the 16th century - the contributors deal with the ancient and medieval origins as well as with the early modern continuity of the Renaissance concepts of method and with \u2019non-regressive\u2019 methodologies in the various approaches of Renaissance natural philosophy, including the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zVO0hPY4wM83hSQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":298,"pubplace":"Hampshire - Brookfield","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}

Roman Aristotle, 1997
By: Barnes, Jonathan (Ed.), Griffin, Miriam (Ed.), Barnes, Jonathan
Title Roman Aristotle
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1997
Published in Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome
Pages 1-69
Categories no categories
Author(s) Barnes, Jonathan
Editor(s) Barnes, Jonathan , Griffin, Miriam
Translator(s)
When Theophrastus died, his library, which included the library of Aristotle, was carried off to the Troad. His successors found nothing much to read; the Lyceum sank into a decline; and Peripatetic ideas had little influence on the course of Hellenistic philosophy. It was only with the rediscovery of the library that Aristotelianism revived—and it revived in Italy. For the library went from the Troad to Athens—whence, as part of Sulla’s war booty, to Rome. There, Andronicus of Rhodes produced the ‘Roman edition’ of the corpus Aristotelicum. It was the first complete and systematic version of Aristotle’s works, the first publication in their full form of the technical treatises, the first genuinely critical edition of the text. Andronicus’ Roman edition caused a sensation. It revitalized the languishing Peripatetics. It set off an explosion of Aristotelian studies. It laid the foundation for all subsequent editions of Aristotle’s works, including our modern texts. When we read Aristotle, we should pour a libation to Andronicus—and to Sulla. That story is the main subject of the following pages. It is familiar enough; my argument will be laborious; I have nothing new to say about it; and my general conclusions are dispiritingly skeptical. But recent scholarship on the topic has taken to the bottle of fantasy and stumbled drunkenly from one dogmatism to the next. Another look at the pertinent texts may be forgiven—and in any event, the story is a peach. My concern (let me stress at the start) is the way in which Aristotle’s texts reached Rome—and us. I am not concerned with the general influence of Peripatetic ideas on the Roman intelligentsia—that is a vast and complex question; nor am I concerned with the specific influence of Aristotle’s ideas on the Roman intelligentsia—that is a different question, less vast and more complex. Indeed, I deal neither with the history of ideas nor with the history of philosophy: my subject is an episode in the history of books and the book trade. [introduction p. 1]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"961","_score":null,"_source":{"id":961,"authors_free":[{"id":1442,"entry_id":961,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1443,"entry_id":961,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":417,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Griffin, Miriam","free_first_name":"Miriam","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":417,"first_name":"Miriam","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Miriam","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121037975","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2242,"entry_id":961,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Roman Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Roman Aristotle"},"abstract":"When Theophrastus died, his library, which included the library of Aristotle, was carried off to the Troad. His successors found nothing much to read; the Lyceum sank into a decline; and Peripatetic ideas had little influence on the course of Hellenistic philosophy. It was only with the rediscovery of the library that Aristotelianism revived\u2014and it revived in Italy. For the library went from the Troad to Athens\u2014whence, as part of Sulla\u2019s war booty, to Rome. There, Andronicus of Rhodes produced the \u2018Roman edition\u2019 of the corpus Aristotelicum. It was the first complete and systematic version of Aristotle\u2019s works, the first publication in their full form of the technical treatises, the first genuinely critical edition of the text.\r\n\r\nAndronicus\u2019 Roman edition caused a sensation. It revitalized the languishing Peripatetics. It set off an explosion of Aristotelian studies. It laid the foundation for all subsequent editions of Aristotle\u2019s works, including our modern texts. When we read Aristotle, we should pour a libation to Andronicus\u2014and to Sulla.\r\n\r\nThat story is the main subject of the following pages. It is familiar enough; my argument will be laborious; I have nothing new to say about it; and my general conclusions are dispiritingly skeptical. But recent scholarship on the topic has taken to the bottle of fantasy and stumbled drunkenly from one dogmatism to the next. Another look at the pertinent texts may be forgiven\u2014and in any event, the story is a peach.\r\n\r\nMy concern (let me stress at the start) is the way in which Aristotle\u2019s texts reached Rome\u2014and us. I am not concerned with the general influence of Peripatetic ideas on the Roman intelligentsia\u2014that is a vast and complex question; nor am I concerned with the specific influence of Aristotle\u2019s ideas on the Roman intelligentsia\u2014that is a different question, less vast and more complex. Indeed, I deal neither with the history of ideas nor with the history of philosophy: my subject is an episode in the history of books and the book trade. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/u9wKWex3PBO13aQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":417,"full_name":"Griffin, Miriam","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":961,"section_of":283,"pages":"1-69","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":283,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Barnes\/Griffin1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The mutual interaction of philosophy and Roman political and cultural life has aroused more and more interest in recent years among students of classical literature, Roman history, and ancient philosophy. In this volume, which gathers together some of the papers originally delivered at a series of seminars in the University of Oxford, scholars from all three disciplines explore the role of Platonism and Aristotelianism in Roman intellectual, cultural, and political life from the second century BC to the third century AD.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y4n6429uWaNLuD2","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":283,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}

Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5, 1997
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Joyal, Mark (Ed.)
Title Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1997
Published in Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to John Whittaker
Pages 213-228
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Joyal, Mark
Translator(s)
As often, the title of this paper needs a word of explanation, since some readers, though not our dedicatee, might wonder who the author I call Ps-Simplicius might be. Those whose interests lie in Aristotle rather than his Neoplatonic commentators may not all be aware that there is a serious problem about the authorship of the De Anima commentary, which they know as the work of Simplicius. This is not the place to discuss this problem, which I and others have discussed elsewhere,¹ but the fact, as I think one must now take it to be, that our author is not the real Simplicius has an important implication for any study on the text of this work. That is, the substantial corpus of work by Simplicius himself cannot be used to corroborate—or undermine—readings in our work, and one cannot appeal to it for support for a conjecture. This is all the more so since one of the stronger arguments for denying authorship to the real Simplicius is that the language of the De Anima commentary is so different from his as to put it beyond the bounds of possibility that we are dealing with two different kinds of writing from one and the same hand.*² If, as some think, the author was Priscian of Lydia, author of the Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, we could occasionally appeal to that work, though it is short—a mere thirty-seven pages of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca.³ But I think there are difficulties about that identification which are sufficient to require at least a degree of caution, and that all one can safely say is that this commentary comes from the same intellectual area as the works of Simplicius, Priscian, and Damascius, all Neoplatonists who worked in Athens at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth. Hence the label Ps-Simplicius—a counsel of prudence, if not quite despair: not quite, because a solution is possible in principle, though I suspect that we may never arrive at it. [introduction p. 213-214]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1469","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1469,"authors_free":[{"id":2543,"entry_id":1469,"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}},{"id":2544,"entry_id":1469,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":540,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Joyal, Mark","free_first_name":"Mark","free_last_name":"Joyal","norm_person":{"id":540,"first_name":"Mark","last_name":"Joyal","full_name":"Joyal, Mark","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162514582","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5","main_title":{"title":"Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5"},"abstract":"As often, the title of this paper needs a word of explanation, since some readers, though not our dedicatee, might wonder who the author I call Ps-Simplicius might be. Those whose interests lie in Aristotle rather than his Neoplatonic commentators may not all be aware that there is a serious problem about the authorship of the De Anima commentary, which they know as the work of Simplicius.\r\n\r\nThis is not the place to discuss this problem, which I and others have discussed elsewhere,\u00b9 but the fact, as I think one must now take it to be, that our author is not the real Simplicius has an important implication for any study on the text of this work. That is, the substantial corpus of work by Simplicius himself cannot be used to corroborate\u2014or undermine\u2014readings in our work, and one cannot appeal to it for support for a conjecture. This is all the more so since one of the stronger arguments for denying authorship to the real Simplicius is that the language of the De Anima commentary is so different from his as to put it beyond the bounds of possibility that we are dealing with two different kinds of writing from one and the same hand.*\u00b2\r\n\r\nIf, as some think, the author was Priscian of Lydia, author of the Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, we could occasionally appeal to that work, though it is short\u2014a mere thirty-seven pages of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca.\u00b3 But I think there are difficulties about that identification which are sufficient to require at least a degree of caution, and that all one can safely say is that this commentary comes from the same intellectual area as the works of Simplicius, Priscian, and Damascius, all Neoplatonists who worked in Athens at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth.\r\n\r\nHence the label Ps-Simplicius\u2014a counsel of prudence, if not quite despair: not quite, because a solution is possible in principle, though I suspect that we may never arrive at it.\r\n[introduction p. 213-214]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SafBRE6SrgivoG5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":540,"full_name":"Joyal, Mark","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1469,"section_of":1470,"pages":"213-228","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1470,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to John Whittaker","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book, which honours the career of a distinguished scholar, contains essays dealing with important problems in Plato, the Platonic tradition, and the texts and transmission of Plato and later Platonic writers. It ranges from the discussion of issues in individual Platonic dialogues to the examination of Platonism in the Middle Ages. The essays are written by leading scholars in the field and reflect the current state of knowledge on the various problems under discussion. The collection as a whole testifies to the importance of the Platonic writings for the history of ideas, and to the vitality that the study of these writings continues to possess.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JhijSNjBEJlYa2C","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1470,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge (2017)","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}

L'arrière-plan néoplatonicien de l'École d'Athènes de Raphaël, 1996
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Hoffmann, Philippe (Ed.), Rinuy, Paul-Louis (Ed.), Farnoux, Alexandre (Coll.) (Ed.)
Title L'arrière-plan néoplatonicien de l'École d'Athènes de Raphaël
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1996
Published in Antiquités imaginaires. La référence antique dans l'art occidental, de la Renaissance à nos jours
Pages 143-158
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Hoffmann, Philippe , Rinuy, Paul-Louis , Farnoux, Alexandre (Coll.)
Translator(s)
Il est néanmoins permis d’insister, comme nous l'avons déjà dit, sur la tonalité manifestement néoplatonicienne de l’œuvre. Tout d’abord, on peut souligner une distorsion entre l’allégorie de la Philosophie et l’École d’Athènes. Il est vrai que l’allégorie est construite sur l’idée d’une dualité des parties de la Philosophie, qui sont donc des parties égales. La légende, «Causarum cognitio», est certainement inspirée par la légende de l’allégorie de la Prudence, peinte vers 1500 par Pietro Vannucci (le Pérugin) dans le Cambio de Pérouse. Le texte qui accompagne la Prudence a été rédigé par le responsable du programme – d’esprit «ficinien» –, l’érudit Francesco Maturanzio, bien connu non seulement comme «modeste auteur de la Cronaca della città di Perugia dal 1492 al 1503», mais aussi comme aristotélicien thomiste, helléniste et collectionneur de manuscrits grecs. Maturanzio exprimait dans ce programme son adhésion à l'idée d'une conciliation des mondes antique et chrétien, une idée qui devait trouver une expression plus grandiose dans la Chambre de la Signature. On relève notamment, dans la légende de la Prudence de Pérouse, l’expression «...Scrutari verum doceo causasque latentes...». Et comme Raphaël avait travaillé avec le Pérugin, en compagnie de qui il était venu à Rome, le lien entre «scrutari... causas latentes» et «causarum cognitio» est tout à fait plausible. Mais la formule a davantage d'application dans le domaine de la physique que dans celui de l'éthique, de même que l'Artémis d’Éphèse représente la Nature avec ses secrets – l’objet de la partie physique de la Philosophie –, et n’a guère de rapport avec l'éthique. La dissymétrie est plus nette dans le traitement des deux personnages de Platon et d'Aristote. Le maître est, comme il se doit, à la droite du disciple. La direction des gestes est si contrastée qu’elle ne peut signifier qu'une différence de domaine : les Idées et le Démiurge sont le domaine d'élection de Platon, tandis que le Bonheur humain – le plus grand bonheur qui puisse échoir à l’homme – est ce qu'Aristote vient offrir en un geste généreux, qui s’adresse aux spectateurs de la fresque. Comment ne pas voir dans cette structure iconographique un écho précis des conceptions néoplatoniciennes ? On retrouve des thèmes que nous avons maintes fois rencontrés et que Raphaël – ou le responsable du programme iconographique – a puisés dans la culture néoplatonicienne de l'époque, chez Marsile Ficin ou Pic de la Mirandole : L'harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d’Aristote, tout d'abord : ce sont les deux figures centrales à partir desquelles s'ordonne toute la composition. La supériorité de la philosophie de Platon (les «grands mystères» néoplatoniciens) sur celle d’Aristote (les «petits mystères»), qui est la propédeutique à la philosophie de Platon et qui succède elle-même au cycle des sept Arts Libéraux, dont on a voulu déceler la représentation parmi le savant désordre des personnages qui entourent les deux figures centrales. La différence des plans ontologiques auxquels se sont élevés les deux penseurs : Platon a décrit le Monde non pas de manière immanente, mais en recherchant ses causes – les Idées et le Démiurge. Il étudie les réalités naturelles elles-mêmes en considérant leur relation à celles qui sont au-dessus de la nature, c'est-à-dire les réalités intelligibles et divines qui en sont les causes. L’étude du Timée, œuvre platonicienne majeure pour le Moyen Âge occidental, relevait aussi dans l'Antiquité du second cycle du cursus néoplatonicien de lecture des dialogues de Platon. Quant à Aristote, il offre une pensée du bonheur qui doit permettre à l’homme, en menant la vie théorétique – qui est en grande partie une recherche des causes –, de «s’immortaliser autant qu’il est possible». Dans une note, Gombrich signale qu’à la date où Raphaël conçut l’École d’Athènes, il n’existait pas de traduction italienne en édition séparée du Timée ni des Éthiques d’Aristote. On peut ajouter que l’édition princeps de Platon en grec ne devait être publiée qu’en 1513 à Venise (édition aldine), et que Platon était lu à l’époque dans la célèbre traduction latine de Ficin imprimée en 1484. On rappellera dans ce contexte que l’édition princeps des œuvres d’Aristote en grec avait été donnée peu d'années auparavant à Venise par Alde Manuce. Précisément, la Préface grecque d’Alexandre Bondini (Agachemeros), collaborateur d’Alde, justifie l'entreprise par un éloge de la supériorité de la philosophie péripatéticienne, qui procure aux hommes le bonheur (eudaimonia). Peu après, en 1499, paraissait à Venise également l’édition princeps (incunable !) du Commentaire de Simplicius aux Catégories, œuvre dans laquelle les humanistes italiens pouvaient commodément lire le développement que nous avons étudié sur la finalité de la philosophie d’Aristote. Ces deux remarques bibliographiques ne prétendent en aucun cas assigner une source littéraire à un célèbre détail iconographique. La leçon de méthode et de prudence d’E. Gombrich est exemplaire, et il serait vain de vouloir ajouter une nouvelle hypothèse, impossible à prouver en toute rigueur, à tant d’autres. Ce que l’on peut souligner en revanche, si l’on veut bien admettre que, dans une période d’effervescence intellectuelle comme la Renaissance italienne, les livres publiés étaient lus et que les idées circulaient, c’est un écho troublant entre le thème de la Préface d’Alexandre Bondini (1495), le développement de Simplicius sur le Bonheur comme finalité de la philosophie d’Aristote (imprimé en 1499), et le principe «symphonique» néoplatonicien qui organise et unifie le programme iconographique de l’École d’Athènes (1509–1511). [conclusion p. 154-158]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"682","_score":null,"_source":{"id":682,"authors_free":[{"id":1011,"entry_id":682,"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":1012,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":2022,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":186,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis","free_first_name":"Paul-Louis","free_last_name":"Rinuy","norm_person":{"id":186,"first_name":"Paul-Louis ","last_name":"Rinuy","full_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/14126795X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2392,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":187,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Alexandre","free_last_name":"Farnoux","norm_person":{"id":187,"first_name":"Alexandre ","last_name":"Farnoux","full_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/188370528","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'arri\u00e8re-plan n\u00e9oplatonicien de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes de Rapha\u00ebl","main_title":{"title":"L'arri\u00e8re-plan n\u00e9oplatonicien de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes de Rapha\u00ebl"},"abstract":"Il est n\u00e9anmoins permis d\u2019insister, comme nous l'avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 dit, sur la tonalit\u00e9 manifestement n\u00e9oplatonicienne de l\u2019\u0153uvre. Tout d\u2019abord, on peut souligner une distorsion entre l\u2019all\u00e9gorie de la Philosophie et l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes. Il est vrai que l\u2019all\u00e9gorie est construite sur l\u2019id\u00e9e d\u2019une dualit\u00e9 des parties de la Philosophie, qui sont donc des parties \u00e9gales. La l\u00e9gende, \u00abCausarum cognitio\u00bb, est certainement inspir\u00e9e par la l\u00e9gende de l\u2019all\u00e9gorie de la Prudence, peinte vers 1500 par Pietro Vannucci (le P\u00e9rugin) dans le Cambio de P\u00e9rouse. Le texte qui accompagne la Prudence a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9dig\u00e9 par le responsable du programme \u2013 d\u2019esprit \u00abficinien\u00bb \u2013, l\u2019\u00e9rudit Francesco Maturanzio, bien connu non seulement comme \u00abmodeste auteur de la Cronaca della citt\u00e0 di Perugia dal 1492 al 1503\u00bb, mais aussi comme aristot\u00e9licien thomiste, hell\u00e9niste et collectionneur de manuscrits grecs.\r\n\r\nMaturanzio exprimait dans ce programme son adh\u00e9sion \u00e0 l'id\u00e9e d'une conciliation des mondes antique et chr\u00e9tien, une id\u00e9e qui devait trouver une expression plus grandiose dans la Chambre de la Signature. On rel\u00e8ve notamment, dans la l\u00e9gende de la Prudence de P\u00e9rouse, l\u2019expression \u00ab...Scrutari verum doceo causasque latentes...\u00bb. Et comme Rapha\u00ebl avait travaill\u00e9 avec le P\u00e9rugin, en compagnie de qui il \u00e9tait venu \u00e0 Rome, le lien entre \u00abscrutari... causas latentes\u00bb et \u00abcausarum cognitio\u00bb est tout \u00e0 fait plausible. Mais la formule a davantage d'application dans le domaine de la physique que dans celui de l'\u00e9thique, de m\u00eame que l'Art\u00e9mis d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se repr\u00e9sente la Nature avec ses secrets \u2013 l\u2019objet de la partie physique de la Philosophie \u2013, et n\u2019a gu\u00e8re de rapport avec l'\u00e9thique.\r\n\r\nLa dissym\u00e9trie est plus nette dans le traitement des deux personnages de Platon et d'Aristote. Le ma\u00eetre est, comme il se doit, \u00e0 la droite du disciple. La direction des gestes est si contrast\u00e9e qu\u2019elle ne peut signifier qu'une diff\u00e9rence de domaine : les Id\u00e9es et le D\u00e9miurge sont le domaine d'\u00e9lection de Platon, tandis que le Bonheur humain \u2013 le plus grand bonheur qui puisse \u00e9choir \u00e0 l\u2019homme \u2013 est ce qu'Aristote vient offrir en un geste g\u00e9n\u00e9reux, qui s\u2019adresse aux spectateurs de la fresque.\r\n\r\nComment ne pas voir dans cette structure iconographique un \u00e9cho pr\u00e9cis des conceptions n\u00e9oplatoniciennes ? On retrouve des th\u00e8mes que nous avons maintes fois rencontr\u00e9s et que Rapha\u00ebl \u2013 ou le responsable du programme iconographique \u2013 a puis\u00e9s dans la culture n\u00e9oplatonicienne de l'\u00e9poque, chez Marsile Ficin ou Pic de la Mirandole :\r\n\r\n L'harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d\u2019Aristote, tout d'abord : ce sont les deux figures centrales \u00e0 partir desquelles s'ordonne toute la composition.\r\n La sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 de la philosophie de Platon (les \u00abgrands myst\u00e8res\u00bb n\u00e9oplatoniciens) sur celle d\u2019Aristote (les \u00abpetits myst\u00e8res\u00bb), qui est la prop\u00e9deutique \u00e0 la philosophie de Platon et qui succ\u00e8de elle-m\u00eame au cycle des sept Arts Lib\u00e9raux, dont on a voulu d\u00e9celer la repr\u00e9sentation parmi le savant d\u00e9sordre des personnages qui entourent les deux figures centrales.\r\n La diff\u00e9rence des plans ontologiques auxquels se sont \u00e9lev\u00e9s les deux penseurs : Platon a d\u00e9crit le Monde non pas de mani\u00e8re immanente, mais en recherchant ses causes \u2013 les Id\u00e9es et le D\u00e9miurge. Il \u00e9tudie les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles elles-m\u00eames en consid\u00e9rant leur relation \u00e0 celles qui sont au-dessus de la nature, c'est-\u00e0-dire les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s intelligibles et divines qui en sont les causes. L\u2019\u00e9tude du Tim\u00e9e, \u0153uvre platonicienne majeure pour le Moyen \u00c2ge occidental, relevait aussi dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 du second cycle du cursus n\u00e9oplatonicien de lecture des dialogues de Platon.\r\n\r\nQuant \u00e0 Aristote, il offre une pens\u00e9e du bonheur qui doit permettre \u00e0 l\u2019homme, en menant la vie th\u00e9or\u00e9tique \u2013 qui est en grande partie une recherche des causes \u2013, de \u00abs\u2019immortaliser autant qu\u2019il est possible\u00bb. Dans une note, Gombrich signale qu\u2019\u00e0 la date o\u00f9 Rapha\u00ebl con\u00e7ut l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, il n\u2019existait pas de traduction italienne en \u00e9dition s\u00e9par\u00e9e du Tim\u00e9e ni des \u00c9thiques d\u2019Aristote. On peut ajouter que l\u2019\u00e9dition princeps de Platon en grec ne devait \u00eatre publi\u00e9e qu\u2019en 1513 \u00e0 Venise (\u00e9dition aldine), et que Platon \u00e9tait lu \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque dans la c\u00e9l\u00e8bre traduction latine de Ficin imprim\u00e9e en 1484. On rappellera dans ce contexte que l\u2019\u00e9dition princeps des \u0153uvres d\u2019Aristote en grec avait \u00e9t\u00e9 donn\u00e9e peu d'ann\u00e9es auparavant \u00e0 Venise par Alde Manuce. Pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment, la Pr\u00e9face grecque d\u2019Alexandre Bondini (Agachemeros), collaborateur d\u2019Alde, justifie l'entreprise par un \u00e9loge de la sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 de la philosophie p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne, qui procure aux hommes le bonheur (eudaimonia). Peu apr\u00e8s, en 1499, paraissait \u00e0 Venise \u00e9galement l\u2019\u00e9dition princeps (incunable !) du Commentaire de Simplicius aux Cat\u00e9gories, \u0153uvre dans laquelle les humanistes italiens pouvaient commod\u00e9ment lire le d\u00e9veloppement que nous avons \u00e9tudi\u00e9 sur la finalit\u00e9 de la philosophie d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nCes deux remarques bibliographiques ne pr\u00e9tendent en aucun cas assigner une source litt\u00e9raire \u00e0 un c\u00e9l\u00e8bre d\u00e9tail iconographique. La le\u00e7on de m\u00e9thode et de prudence d\u2019E. Gombrich est exemplaire, et il serait vain de vouloir ajouter une nouvelle hypoth\u00e8se, impossible \u00e0 prouver en toute rigueur, \u00e0 tant d\u2019autres. Ce que l\u2019on peut souligner en revanche, si l\u2019on veut bien admettre que, dans une p\u00e9riode d\u2019effervescence intellectuelle comme la Renaissance italienne, les livres publi\u00e9s \u00e9taient lus et que les id\u00e9es circulaient, c\u2019est un \u00e9cho troublant entre le th\u00e8me de la Pr\u00e9face d\u2019Alexandre Bondini (1495), le d\u00e9veloppement de Simplicius sur le Bonheur comme finalit\u00e9 de la philosophie d\u2019Aristote (imprim\u00e9 en 1499), et le principe \u00absymphonique\u00bb n\u00e9oplatonicien qui organise et unifie le programme iconographique de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes (1509\u20131511). [conclusion p. 154-158]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KewGi1BBbx4GOnk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":186,"full_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":187,"full_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":682,"section_of":165,"pages":"143-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":165,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Antiquit\u00e9s imaginaires. La r\u00e9f\u00e9rence antique dans l'art occidental, de la Renaissance \u00e0 nos jours","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hoffmann1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Rassemblant quatorze contributions de sp\u00e9cialistes de la litt\u00e9rature et de l\u2019histoire de l\u2019art, ce livre tente de donner une s\u00e9rie d\u2019aper\u00e7us pr\u00e9cis des diff\u00e9rentes mani\u00e8res dont la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 a jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le, capital, dans la cr\u00e9ation artistique de la Renaissance \u00e0 nos jours.\r\nDe Rapha\u00ebl jusqu\u2019aux actuels mouvements \u00ab post-modernes \u00bb, la cr\u00e9ation a \u00e9t\u00e9 profond\u00e9ment marqu\u00e9e en Occident par les visages successifs d\u2019une Antiquit\u00e9 sans cesse r\u00e9invent\u00e9e et r\u00e9interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e. Ovide, Philostrate, Platon et Aristote ont \u00e9t\u00e9 au coeur des d\u00e9bats et des r\u00e9flexions des \u00e9crivains et des critiques, tout comme les chefs-d\u2019oeuvre de l\u2019architecture et de la sculpture \u2013 le Parth\u00e9non ou le Laocoon \u2013 ont inspir\u00e9 les artistes au fil de leurs red\u00e9couvertes successives de l\u2019art antique. H\u00e9ritage, influence, r\u00e9invention, Classic revival, Nachleben der Antike ? Les mots et les expressions sont nombreux pour tenter de cerner un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne crucial et chatoyant. Les \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies par Philippe Hoffmann, Paul-Louis Rinuy et Alexandre Farnoux, au terme d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire et d\u2019une table ronde tenus au Centre d\u2019\u00e9tudes anciennes de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure, veulent ouvrir des pistes pour de nouvelles recherches et illustrer divers aspects de la pr\u00e9sence de l\u2019Antique au sein des modernit\u00e9s [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Al1RSBIKKbIdEE7","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":165,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}

Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited, 1996
By: Schofield, Malcom, Algra, Keimpe A. (Ed.), Runia, David T. (Ed.)
Title Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1996
Published in Polyhistor. Studies in the history and historiography of ancient philosophy: presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his sixtieth birthday
Pages 3-20
Categories no categories
Author(s) Schofield, Malcom
Editor(s) Algra, Keimpe A. , Runia, David T.
Translator(s)
Very short papers are not what his readers most immediately associate with the name of Jaap Mansfeld. But his piece entitled ‘Anaxagoras’ Other World’ runs to less than three full pages of text, and the notes cover only half a page more.1 Perhaps its brevity is one of the reasons for its neglect. Schofield in his light revision of Raven’s chapter on Anaxagoras in The Presocratic Philosophers does not refer to it.2 Nor do more recent articles such as Inwood’s or Furth’s.3 The neglect is unfortunate. Of the difficult text Mansfeld takes as his topic, ‘Anaxagoras’ Other World’ seems to me much the most persuasive account available in the scholarly literature. In what follows I shall advance further considerations in favour of its interpretation of the mysterious ‘other world’, and against some of the alternatives favoured in other quarters. [p. 3]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1036","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1036,"authors_free":[{"id":1567,"entry_id":1036,"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}},{"id":1568,"entry_id":1036,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1570,"entry_id":1036,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":30,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Runia, David T.","free_first_name":"David T.","free_last_name":"Runia","norm_person":{"id":30,"first_name":"David T.","last_name":"Runia","full_name":"Runia, David T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/113181515","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited","main_title":{"title":"Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited"},"abstract":"Very short papers are not what his readers most immediately \r\nassociate with the name of Jaap Mansfeld. But his piece entitled \r\n\u2018Anaxagoras\u2019 Other World\u2019 runs to less than three full pages of text, \r\nand the notes cover only half a page more.1 Perhaps its brevity is \r\none of the reasons for its neglect. Schofield in his light revision of \r\nRaven\u2019s chapter on Anaxagoras in The Presocratic Philosophers does \r\nnot refer to it.2 Nor do more recent articles such as Inwood\u2019s or \r\nFurth\u2019s.3 The neglect is unfortunate. Of the difficult text Mansfeld \r\ntakes as his topic, \u2018Anaxagoras\u2019 Other World\u2019 seems to me much \r\nthe most persuasive account available in the scholarly literature. In \r\nwhat follows I shall advance further considerations in favour of its \r\ninterpretation of the mysterious \u2018other world\u2019, and against some of \r\nthe alternatives favoured in other quarters. [p. 3]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3yCRGxvPNrTq61L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":285,"full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":30,"full_name":"Runia, David T.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1036,"section_of":162,"pages":"3-20","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":162,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Polyhistor. Studies in the history and historiography of ancient philosophy: presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his sixtieth birthday","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra\/Horst\/Runia1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"During the past three decades Jaap Mansfeld, Professor of Ancient Philosophy in Utrecht, has built up a formidable reputation as a leading scholar in his field. His work has concentrated on the Presocratics, Hellenistic Philosophy, the sources of our knowledge of ancient philosophy (esp. doxography) and the history of scholarship.\r\nIn honour of his sixtieth birthday, colleagues and friends have contributed a collection of articles which represent the state of the art in the study of the history of ancient philosophy and frequently concentrate on subjects in which the honorand has made important discoveries.\r\nThe 22 contributors include M. Baltes, J. Barnes, J. Brunschwig, W.M. Calder III, J. Dillon, P.L. Donini, J. Glucker, A.A. Long, L.M. de Rijk, D. Sedley, P. Schrijvers, and M. Vegetti. The volume concludes with a complete bibliography of Jaap Mansfeld's scholarly work so far. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h3vavPv0hEyKsdh","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":162,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"72","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}

The writings of the De anima commentators, 1996
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.)
Title The writings of the De anima commentators
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1996
Published in Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the "De Anima"
Pages 53-71
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Translator(s)
So far we have discussed the work of our commentators as if it was simply scholarship and philosophical exposition, whether of their own philosophy or that of Aristotle which most of them held to be fundamen­ tally the same. There is, however, another aspect of the commentaries which, while not prominent, should not be forgotten. That is the way in which doing such work was an integral part of a life aimed at the greatest possible degree of return to that higher reality from which the commenta­ tors saw human life as a decline and separation. It is becoming increasingly better understood that for the great majority of Greek philo­ sophers, philosophy was not only a way of thinking but a way of life.70 The late Neoplatonists seem to have gone even further, and regarded the production of commentaries as a kind of service to the divine, much as a Christian monk who engaged in scholarship would have seen it in that light So we find at the end of Simplicius’ commentary on the De caelo what can only be described as a prayer: ‘Oh lord and artificer of the universe and the simple bodies in it, to you and all that has been brought into being by you I offer this work as a hymn, being eager to see as a revelation the magnitude of your works and to proclaim it to those who are worthy, so that thinking no mean or mortal thoughts about you we may make obeisance to you in accordance with the high place you occupy in respect of all that is produced by you’ (731.25-9). Those who think that ancient philosophy ceased to be of interest some three and a half centuries before these words were written and who may from time to time consult Sim­ plicius for an opinion on the meaning of an Aristotelian text, are unlikely ever to see these words, or those that come at the end of the commentary on the Enckeiridion (138.22-3). Without them they cannot fully under­ stand the nature of works beyond whose surface they never penetrate, works whose very composition could be seen as an act of reverence to the gods of paganism. [Conclusion, p. 71]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"927","_score":null,"_source":{"id":927,"authors_free":[{"id":1371,"entry_id":927,"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":2527,"entry_id":927,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"The writings of the De anima commentators","main_title":{"title":"The writings of the De anima commentators"},"abstract":"So far we have discussed the work of our commentators as if it was \r\nsimply scholarship and philosophical exposition, whether of their own \r\nphilosophy or that of Aristotle which most of them held to be fundamen\u00ad\r\ntally the same. There is, however, another aspect of the commentaries \r\nwhich, while not prominent, should not be forgotten. That is the way in \r\nwhich doing such work was an integral part of a life aimed at the greatest \r\npossible degree of return to that higher reality from which the commenta\u00ad\r\ntors saw human life as a decline and separation. It is becoming \r\nincreasingly better understood that for the great majority of Greek philo\u00ad\r\nsophers, philosophy was not only a way of thinking but a way of life.70 The \r\nlate Neoplatonists seem to have gone even further, and regarded the \r\nproduction of commentaries as a kind of service to the divine, much as a \r\nChristian monk who engaged in scholarship would have seen it in that \r\nlight So we find at the end of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the De caelo what \r\ncan only be described as a prayer: \u2018Oh lord and artificer of the universe \r\nand the simple bodies in it, to you and all that has been brought into being \r\nby you I offer this work as a hymn, being eager to see as a revelation the \r\nmagnitude of your works and to proclaim it to those who are worthy, so \r\nthat thinking no mean or mortal thoughts about you we may make \r\nobeisance to you in accordance with the high place you occupy in respect \r\nof all that is produced by you\u2019 (731.25-9). Those who think that ancient \r\nphilosophy ceased to be of interest some three and a half centuries before \r\nthese words were written and who may from time to time consult Sim\u00ad\r\nplicius for an opinion on the meaning of an Aristotelian text, are unlikely \r\never to see these words, or those that come at the end of the commentary \r\non the Enckeiridion (138.22-3). Without them they cannot fully under\u00ad\r\nstand the nature of works beyond whose surface they never penetrate, \r\nworks whose very composition could be seen as an act of reverence to the \r\ngods of paganism. [Conclusion, p. 71]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OwPB7ahnasyI8P2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":927,"section_of":213,"pages":"53-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":213,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the \"De Anima\"","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Steven Strange: Emory University Scholars have traditionally used the Aristotelian commentators as sources for lost philosophical works and occasionally also as aids to understanding Aristotle. In H. J. Blumenthal's view, however, the commentators often assumed that there was a Platonist philosophy to which not only they but Aristotle himself subscribed. Their expository writing usually expressed their versions of Neoplatonist philosophy. Blumenthal here places the commentators in their intellectual and historical contexts, identifies their philosophical views, and demonstrates their tendency to read Aristotle as if he were a member of their philosophical circle.This book focuses on the commentators' exposition of Aristotle's treatise De anima (On the Soul), because it is relatively well documented and because the concept of soul was so important in all Neoplatonic systems. Blumenthal explains how the Neoplatonizing of Aristotle's thought, as well as the widespread use of the commentators' works, influenced the understanding of Aristotle in both the Islamic and Judaeo-Christian traditions.H. J. Blumenthal is the author or coeditor of six previous books and is currently preparing a two-volume translation, with introduction and commentary, of Simplicius' Commentary on \"De anima\" for publication in Cornell's series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VOUUZIIp0rHNG0V","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":213,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}

Simplicius, 1996
By: Sorabji, Richard, Spawforth, Antony (Ed.), Hornblower, Simon (Ed.)
Title Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1996
Published in The Oxford Classical Dictionary
Pages 1409-1410
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s) Spawforth, Antony , Hornblower, Simon
Translator(s)
Simplicius, 6th-cent. AD Neoplatonist (see Neoplatonism) and one of seven philosophers who left Athens for Ctesiphon after Justinian closed the Athenian Neoplatonist school in 529. He probably wrote all his commentaries after 532, when it was safe for the philosophers to leave Ctesiphon. Recent evidence suggests that he may have settled at Harran (ancient Carrhae) in present-day Turkey, from where Platonism was brought back in the 9th cent. to Baghdad. Simplicius was taught by Ammonius (2) in Alexandria and by Damascius, head of the Athenian school. He wrote commentaries, all extant, on Aristotle's De caelo, Physics, and Categories (in that order), and on Epictetus' Manual, among other works. A commentary on Aristotle’s De anima is of disputed authorship. His are the fullest of all Aristotle commentaries, recording debates on Aristotle from the preceding 850 years and embedding many fragments from the entire millennium. At the same time, Simplicius gave his own views on many topics, including place, time, and matter. His commentaries express the revulsion of a devout Neoplatonist for Christianity and for its arch-philosophical defender, Philoponus. Commentary in Aristotelium Graeca 7-11 (1882-1907), partly trans. in R. Sorabji (ed.), The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle (1987- ); In Ench. Epict., ed. Dübner (1840), trans. G. Stanhope (1694). I. Hadot (ed.), Simplicius, sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie (1987); M. Tardieu, Coutumes mésopotamiennes (1991); RE3A 1 (1927). R. R. K. S. [the entire entry]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1386","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1386,"authors_free":[{"id":2139,"entry_id":1386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2142,"entry_id":1386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":335,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Spawforth, Antony","free_first_name":"Antony","free_last_name":"Spawforth","norm_person":{"id":335,"first_name":"Antony","last_name":"Spawforth","full_name":"Spawforth, Antony","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131894757","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2143,"entry_id":1386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":334,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hornblower, Simon","free_first_name":"Simon","free_last_name":"Hornblower","norm_person":{"id":334,"first_name":"Simon","last_name":"Hornblower","full_name":"Hornblower, Simon","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135771676","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius, 6th-cent. AD Neoplatonist (see Neoplatonism) and one of seven philosophers who left Athens for Ctesiphon after Justinian closed the Athenian Neoplatonist school in 529. He probably wrote all his commentaries after 532, when it was safe for the philosophers to leave Ctesiphon. Recent evidence suggests that he may have settled at Harran (ancient Carrhae) in present-day Turkey, from where Platonism was brought back in the 9th cent. to Baghdad.\r\n\r\nSimplicius was taught by Ammonius (2) in Alexandria and by Damascius, head of the Athenian school. He wrote commentaries, all extant, on Aristotle's De caelo, Physics, and Categories (in that order), and on Epictetus' Manual, among other works. A commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De anima is of disputed authorship. His are the fullest of all Aristotle commentaries, recording debates on Aristotle from the preceding 850 years and embedding many fragments from the entire millennium.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, Simplicius gave his own views on many topics, including place, time, and matter. His commentaries express the revulsion of a devout Neoplatonist for Christianity and for its arch-philosophical defender, Philoponus.\r\n\r\nCommentary in Aristotelium Graeca 7-11 (1882-1907), partly trans. in R. Sorabji (ed.), The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle (1987- ); In Ench. Epict., ed. D\u00fcbner (1840), trans. G. Stanhope (1694). I. Hadot (ed.), Simplicius, sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie (1987); M. Tardieu, Coutumes m\u00e9sopotamiennes (1991); RE3A 1 (1927). R. R. K. S. [the entire entry]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vzddeyFIMrhk1Ab","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":335,"full_name":"Spawforth, Antony","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":334,"full_name":"Hornblower, Simon","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1386,"section_of":1387,"pages":"1409-1410","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1387,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Oxford Classical Dictionary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hornblower1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"For more than half a century, the Oxford Classical Dictionary has been the unrivaled one-volume reference work on the Greco-Roman world. Whether one is interested in literature or art, philosophy or law, mythology or science, intimate details of daily life or broad cultural and historical trends, the OCD is the first place to turn for clear, authoritative information on all aspects of ancient culture.\r\n\r\nNow comes the Fourth Edition of this redoubtable resource, thoroughly revised and updated, with numerous new entries and two new focus areas (on reception and anthropology). Here, in over six thousand entries ranging from long articles to brief identifications, readers can find information on virtually any topic of interest--athletics, bee-keeping, botany, magic, religious rites, postal service, slavery, navigation, and the reckoning of time. The Oxford Classical Dictionary profiles every major figure of Greece and Rome, from Homer and Virgil to Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. Readers will find entries on mythological and legendary figures, on major cities, famous buildings, and important geographical landmarks, and on legal, rhetorical, literary, and political terms and concepts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FsDwLlWXlqssLoo","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1387,"pubplace":"Oxford \u2013 New York","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"3","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}

The commentators: their identity and their background, 1996
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.)
Title The commentators: their identity and their background
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1996
Published in Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the "De Anima"
Pages 35-51
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Translator(s)
While in the previous chapter we have been looking at the overall similarity of the commentators’ methods and assumptions, it is now time to try to say something about them as individuals and the work they produced. This is not an easy task. We may have lives of the most important philosophers, Plotinus and Proclus, and even of an apparent nonentity like Isidore, but for those who wrote commentaries on Aristotle, we can often do little more than establish places of activity and approximate dates. The information most consistently available is the most useless—an indication, sometimes no more than a manuscript tradition with all the doubts attaching to that, of the town or area a man came from or was known by: “Proclus the Lycian,” “Simplicius the Cilician,” “Priscian the Lydian.” Those who operated in Alexandria are usually labeled “Alexandrian,” too consistently for the label to be anything more than an indication that that was where they worked or spent an important part of their careers. Thus, all we know, in most cases, is where some of the writers we are concerned with began their lives, and then only to the extent of knowing what part of the world it was in. Nevertheless, some information on the commentators is provided by sources that tell us about them incidentally to their main aim. Damascius’ reconstructed Life of Isidore is one such source: it deals in passing with those who were either personally or historically connected with the subject of the work. Much of the information about the relation between those who worked at Athens and Alexandria in the fifth and sixth centuries is derived from that source. In particular, most of the evidence about who studied with whom and where is to be found there. Unfortunately, by far the larger of two collections of excerpts in Photius (codd. 181 and 242), by whom most of the surviving contents have been preserved, comes from a particularly scrappy part of his work, so that we often do not know which snippets should be taken together, a point that affects, among other things, an important question about Ammonius. Two works that do survive and give us some further help are Zacharias’ Life of Severus, from which, though it concentrates on Christians, we can learn something about conditions in the schools of Alexandria as well as about their students and teachers, and the same writer’s dialogue Ammonius, which provides rather less than its title might lead one to hope, being concerned primarily with matters in dispute between pagans and Christians, such as the eternity of the world and the creative activity of God. It tells us very little about Ammonius but does raise a question of some importance about his beliefs, with which we must deal below. At an earlier period, Marinus’ Life of Proclus, a document often distorted by the desire to fit biographical facts to philosophical notions, gives us some information about others who worked at Athens and are part of the story of Aristotelian commentary—namely, Plutarch and Syrianus, who, Marinus tells us, were respectively master and pupil, as well as both being teachers of Proclus. In addition, he mentions persons about whom he gives us little or no other information, such as Plutarch’s grandson Archiadas and Proclus’ contemporary Domninus. Unfortunately, the Life does not proceed in chronological order because its structure depends on a framework of the Neoplatonic scale of virtues and Proclus’ ascent to its summit. In addition to what these sources provide, we have pieces of more or less incidental information from elsewhere, some of it not unimportant. Such are the dates infrequently given en passant in the commentaries and the occasional references to philosophy in both contemporary and later historians. Some of these references are notoriously difficult to interpret or even simply unreliable. In this category are the details of the exile of 529 and the possible return from it. In addition, there are entries in or from the lexica and other compilations so popular in late Classical antiquity and early Byzantine culture; some of these overlap both with each other and with the material found in Photius. There are some figures in the tradition of Aristotelian commentary about whom we know almost nothing. Such are Asclepius, the editor of Ammonius’ Metaphysics course, at least for Books A-Z, Olympiodorus in the next generation, and his presumed pupil Elias. His—probably—contemporary David is well known in the Armenian tradition but not in the Greek. The last three, as it happens, are all later than the last surviving Life of a philosopher. One of the perversities of the distribution of information is that we are often better informed about those whose work has been lost but was clearly important in the tradition, like Plutarch, and even those whose work has been lost and may not have been important in the interpretation of either the Platonic or the Aristotelian writings in any case, like Isidore, than about the authors of considerable parts of our corpus of texts, like Ammonius and Simplicius. Let us now go back to the beginning and look at what we do know about those who contributed to the exposition of the De Anima, leaving aside Plotinus, whose contribution was the more general one of integrating Aristotelian psychology into Neoplatonic philosophy and about whose life we are reasonably well, if somewhat sporadically, informed. We can say that Iamblichus, the initiator of the organization of the Neoplatonists’ Aristotle and Plato course, and perhaps their Aristotle course as well, probably did not write a De Anima commentary, a matter we shall return to shortly, but Ps-Simplicius claims to follow the guidance he offered in his own treatise on the soul. Since, however, most of that has been lost, and Ps-Simplicius’ De Anima commentary notoriously fails to provide the extensive documentation and specific attributions found in the other Simplicius commentaries, we can assess neither the real extent nor the specific details of Iamblichus’ influence. That situation contrasts with what obtains in the case of their Categories commentaries: while in this case Iamblichus’ commentary is lost, Simplicius refers to it constantly by name. It is worth mentioning that Proclus does the same in his Timaeus commentary, showing that Iamblichus’ lead was followed by at least some—perhaps avoiding at this stage adding "Athenians"—at both ends of the combined Aristotle and Plato course. Nevertheless, the combination of Ps-Simplicius’ expression of intent in the De Anima commentary and what actually happens in other commentaries suggests that Iamblichus’ influence on the exposition of the De Anima will not have been negligible. Its extent may or may not have been greater because of his place early in the story: though his exact dates cannot be established, they fall in the second half of the third century and the beginning of the fourth, making it possible that he was actually a pupil of Porphyry, as later writers assert—an assertion that must, however, be treated with some care because of the notorious habit of ancient biographers and doxographers of arranging philosophers in chains of master-pupil relations, a habit that affects the whole history of Greek philosophy from Thales to the end. After Iamblichus, there is a gap in the history of Platonism and also of Aristotelian exposition. The latter is, however, partly filled by the anomalous figure of Themistius, partly because of the very anomaly that consists in his being a Peripatetic and standing outside the mainstream of philosophical development, which was by now almost entirely Platonist. Themistius differs from the other commentators in another respect too. Most of them were, as far as we know, the equivalent of professional philosophers today, producing philosophical research while earning their living by teaching, subsidized perhaps, in the case of those Neoplatonists working at Athens, by the Academy’s funds, from whatever source these came. Themistius, on the other hand, was a diplomat and politician whose interest in Aristotle might be thought of as loosely analogous to Gladstone’s in Homer. The commentaries were written early in his life, and there is no evidence that he ever returned to actual study of Aristotle, nor that he ever taught philosophy. Nor is there any evidence that will withstand scrutiny that he ever wrote on Plato, great as his admiration for him was. [introduction p. 35-38]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1449","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1449,"authors_free":[{"id":2431,"entry_id":1449,"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}},{"id":2444,"entry_id":1449,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"The commentators: their identity and their background","main_title":{"title":"The commentators: their identity and their background"},"abstract":"While in the previous chapter we have been looking at the overall similarity of the commentators\u2019 methods and assumptions, it is now time to try to say something about them as individuals and the work they produced. This is not an easy task. We may have lives of the most important philosophers, Plotinus and Proclus, and even of an apparent nonentity like Isidore, but for those who wrote commentaries on Aristotle, we can often do little more than establish places of activity and approximate dates.\r\n\r\nThe information most consistently available is the most useless\u2014an indication, sometimes no more than a manuscript tradition with all the doubts attaching to that, of the town or area a man came from or was known by: \u201cProclus the Lycian,\u201d \u201cSimplicius the Cilician,\u201d \u201cPriscian the Lydian.\u201d Those who operated in Alexandria are usually labeled \u201cAlexandrian,\u201d too consistently for the label to be anything more than an indication that that was where they worked or spent an important part of their careers. Thus, all we know, in most cases, is where some of the writers we are concerned with began their lives, and then only to the extent of knowing what part of the world it was in.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, some information on the commentators is provided by sources that tell us about them incidentally to their main aim. Damascius\u2019 reconstructed Life of Isidore is one such source: it deals in passing with those who were either personally or historically connected with the subject of the work. Much of the information about the relation between those who worked at Athens and Alexandria in the fifth and sixth centuries is derived from that source. In particular, most of the evidence about who studied with whom and where is to be found there.\r\n\r\nUnfortunately, by far the larger of two collections of excerpts in Photius (codd. 181 and 242), by whom most of the surviving contents have been preserved, comes from a particularly scrappy part of his work, so that we often do not know which snippets should be taken together, a point that affects, among other things, an important question about Ammonius.\r\n\r\nTwo works that do survive and give us some further help are Zacharias\u2019 Life of Severus, from which, though it concentrates on Christians, we can learn something about conditions in the schools of Alexandria as well as about their students and teachers, and the same writer\u2019s dialogue Ammonius, which provides rather less than its title might lead one to hope, being concerned primarily with matters in dispute between pagans and Christians, such as the eternity of the world and the creative activity of God. It tells us very little about Ammonius but does raise a question of some importance about his beliefs, with which we must deal below.\r\n\r\nAt an earlier period, Marinus\u2019 Life of Proclus, a document often distorted by the desire to fit biographical facts to philosophical notions, gives us some information about others who worked at Athens and are part of the story of Aristotelian commentary\u2014namely, Plutarch and Syrianus, who, Marinus tells us, were respectively master and pupil, as well as both being teachers of Proclus. In addition, he mentions persons about whom he gives us little or no other information, such as Plutarch\u2019s grandson Archiadas and Proclus\u2019 contemporary Domninus. Unfortunately, the Life does not proceed in chronological order because its structure depends on a framework of the Neoplatonic scale of virtues and Proclus\u2019 ascent to its summit.\r\n\r\nIn addition to what these sources provide, we have pieces of more or less incidental information from elsewhere, some of it not unimportant. Such are the dates infrequently given en passant in the commentaries and the occasional references to philosophy in both contemporary and later historians. Some of these references are notoriously difficult to interpret or even simply unreliable. In this category are the details of the exile of 529 and the possible return from it. In addition, there are entries in or from the lexica and other compilations so popular in late Classical antiquity and early Byzantine culture; some of these overlap both with each other and with the material found in Photius.\r\n\r\nThere are some figures in the tradition of Aristotelian commentary about whom we know almost nothing. Such are Asclepius, the editor of Ammonius\u2019 Metaphysics course, at least for Books A-Z, Olympiodorus in the next generation, and his presumed pupil Elias. His\u2014probably\u2014contemporary David is well known in the Armenian tradition but not in the Greek. The last three, as it happens, are all later than the last surviving Life of a philosopher.\r\n\r\nOne of the perversities of the distribution of information is that we are often better informed about those whose work has been lost but was clearly important in the tradition, like Plutarch, and even those whose work has been lost and may not have been important in the interpretation of either the Platonic or the Aristotelian writings in any case, like Isidore, than about the authors of considerable parts of our corpus of texts, like Ammonius and Simplicius.\r\n\r\nLet us now go back to the beginning and look at what we do know about those who contributed to the exposition of the De Anima, leaving aside Plotinus, whose contribution was the more general one of integrating Aristotelian psychology into Neoplatonic philosophy and about whose life we are reasonably well, if somewhat sporadically, informed.\r\n\r\nWe can say that Iamblichus, the initiator of the organization of the Neoplatonists\u2019 Aristotle and Plato course, and perhaps their Aristotle course as well, probably did not write a De Anima commentary, a matter we shall return to shortly, but Ps-Simplicius claims to follow the guidance he offered in his own treatise on the soul.\r\n\r\nSince, however, most of that has been lost, and Ps-Simplicius\u2019 De Anima commentary notoriously fails to provide the extensive documentation and specific attributions found in the other Simplicius commentaries, we can assess neither the real extent nor the specific details of Iamblichus\u2019 influence. That situation contrasts with what obtains in the case of their Categories commentaries: while in this case Iamblichus\u2019 commentary is lost, Simplicius refers to it constantly by name.\r\n\r\nIt is worth mentioning that Proclus does the same in his Timaeus commentary, showing that Iamblichus\u2019 lead was followed by at least some\u2014perhaps avoiding at this stage adding \"Athenians\"\u2014at both ends of the combined Aristotle and Plato course. Nevertheless, the combination of Ps-Simplicius\u2019 expression of intent in the De Anima commentary and what actually happens in other commentaries suggests that Iamblichus\u2019 influence on the exposition of the De Anima will not have been negligible.\r\n\r\nIts extent may or may not have been greater because of his place early in the story: though his exact dates cannot be established, they fall in the second half of the third century and the beginning of the fourth, making it possible that he was actually a pupil of Porphyry, as later writers assert\u2014an assertion that must, however, be treated with some care because of the notorious habit of ancient biographers and doxographers of arranging philosophers in chains of master-pupil relations, a habit that affects the whole history of Greek philosophy from Thales to the end.\r\n\r\nAfter Iamblichus, there is a gap in the history of Platonism and also of Aristotelian exposition. The latter is, however, partly filled by the anomalous figure of Themistius, partly because of the very anomaly that consists in his being a Peripatetic and standing outside the mainstream of philosophical development, which was by now almost entirely Platonist.\r\n\r\nThemistius differs from the other commentators in another respect too. Most of them were, as far as we know, the equivalent of professional philosophers today, producing philosophical research while earning their living by teaching, subsidized perhaps, in the case of those Neoplatonists working at Athens, by the Academy\u2019s funds, from whatever source these came.\r\n\r\nThemistius, on the other hand, was a diplomat and politician whose interest in Aristotle might be thought of as loosely analogous to Gladstone\u2019s in Homer. The commentaries were written early in his life, and there is no evidence that he ever returned to actual study of Aristotle, nor that he ever taught philosophy. Nor is there any evidence that will withstand scrutiny that he ever wrote on Plato, great as his admiration for him was. [introduction p. 35-38]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GBYzMZ4X3Nt0hsI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1449,"section_of":213,"pages":"35-51","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":213,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the \"De Anima\"","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Steven Strange: Emory University Scholars have traditionally used the Aristotelian commentators as sources for lost philosophical works and occasionally also as aids to understanding Aristotle. In H. J. Blumenthal's view, however, the commentators often assumed that there was a Platonist philosophy to which not only they but Aristotle himself subscribed. Their expository writing usually expressed their versions of Neoplatonist philosophy. Blumenthal here places the commentators in their intellectual and historical contexts, identifies their philosophical views, and demonstrates their tendency to read Aristotle as if he were a member of their philosophical circle.This book focuses on the commentators' exposition of Aristotle's treatise De anima (On the Soul), because it is relatively well documented and because the concept of soul was so important in all Neoplatonic systems. Blumenthal explains how the Neoplatonizing of Aristotle's thought, as well as the widespread use of the commentators' works, influenced the understanding of Aristotle in both the Islamic and Judaeo-Christian traditions.H. J. Blumenthal is the author or coeditor of six previous books and is currently preparing a two-volume translation, with introduction and commentary, of Simplicius' Commentary on \"De anima\" for publication in Cornell's series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VOUUZIIp0rHNG0V","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":213,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}

Uno stoico di età giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto, 1996
By: Conca, Fabrizio (Ed.), Cortassa, Guido
Title Uno stoico di età giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto
Type Book Section
Language Italian
Date 1996
Published in Byzantina Mediolanensia, Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Bizantini (Milano, 19- 22 ottobre 1994)
Pages 107-116
Categories no categories
Author(s) Cortassa, Guido
Editor(s) Conca, Fabrizio
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1472","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1472,"authors_free":[{"id":2547,"entry_id":1472,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":541,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Conca, Fabrizio","free_first_name":"Fabrizio","free_last_name":"Conca","norm_person":{"id":541,"first_name":"Fabrizio","last_name":"Conca","full_name":"Conca, Fabrizio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157349595","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2548,"entry_id":1472,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":542,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cortassa, Guido","free_first_name":"Guido","free_last_name":"Cortassa","norm_person":{"id":542,"first_name":"Guido","last_name":"Cortassa","full_name":"Cortassa, Guido","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Uno stoico di et\u00e0 giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto","main_title":{"title":"Uno stoico di et\u00e0 giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8BwDS59793lFKd2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":541,"full_name":"Conca, Fabrizio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":542,"full_name":"Cortassa, Guido","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1472,"section_of":1471,"pages":"107-116","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1471,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"it","title":"Byzantina Mediolanensia, Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Bizantini (Milano, 19- 22 ottobre 1994)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Conca1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4FIpP1ncE8R5FJL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1471,"pubplace":"Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro)","publisher":"","series":"Medioevo romanzo e orientale. Colloqui","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}

Dunamis in "Simplicius", 1996
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Cardullo, R. Loredana (Ed.), Romano, Francesco (Ed.)
Title Dunamis in "Simplicius"
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1996
Published in Dunamis nel Neoplatonismo: atti del II Colloquio internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoplatonismo, Università degli studi di Catania, 6-8 ottobre 1994
Pages 149-172
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Cardullo, R. Loredana , Romano, Francesco
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1495","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1495,"authors_free":[{"id":2593,"entry_id":1495,"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}},{"id":2594,"entry_id":1495,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":24,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana","free_first_name":"R. Loredana","free_last_name":"Cardullo","norm_person":{"id":24,"first_name":"R. Loredana ","last_name":"Cardullo","full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139800220","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2595,"entry_id":1495,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":305,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Dunamis in \"Simplicius\"","main_title":{"title":"Dunamis in \"Simplicius\""},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/abLTBIirPsa77f4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":24,"full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":305,"full_name":"Romano, Francesco","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1495,"section_of":1494,"pages":"149-172","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1494,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"it","title":"Dunamis nel Neoplatonismo: atti del II Colloquio internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoplatonismo, Universit\u00e0 degli studi di Catania, 6-8 ottobre 1994","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Romano_Cardullo_1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PQyCtyKJxkHvx2E","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1494,"pubplace":"Firenze","publisher":"La nuova Italia","series":"Symbolon. Studi e testi di filosofia antica e medievale","volume":"16","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}

Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle, 1995
By: Algra, Keimpe A., Algra, Keimpe A. (Ed.)
Title Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1995
Published in Concepts of space in Greek thought
Pages 121-191
Categories no categories
Author(s) Algra, Keimpe A.
Editor(s) Algra, Keimpe A.
Translator(s)
The investigations of the present chapter took the different concepts of place (topos) as they appear in the Corpus Aristotelicum as their starting point. First, in sections 4.1-4.3, I discussed the relationship between the concept of topos which appears in the course of the discussion of the category poson in the Cat. and the famous definition of topos established in Phys. A. Though scholars like Duhem and Jammer, and more recently, King and Mendell have taken these passages seriously as containing an unambiguous account of physical place¹⁵¹—and have consequently tried their hardest to establish in what way these passages were related to the account in Phys. A—I concluded that they present enough problems of their own to invalidate such claims. If we take the now more or less universally accepted relative chronology of the surviving school works as established—and I have not been able to find reasons for not doing so—and if we may thus assume that the Cat. was written some five or ten years earlier than Phys. A, we may conclude that insofar as we might speak of a development of Aristotle’s philosophy of place between the Cat. and Phys. A, this development should not be described as the substitution of one articulate view by another, but rather as a growing awareness of the problems inherent in the common-sense notions of place and space. This seemed to be confirmed by the findings of section 4.4. There I investigated Aristotle’s dialectical method in general and in Phys. A in particular. Against Owen on the one hand, and Morsink on the other, I argued that the data from which Aristotle’s dialectical procedure in Phys. A took its start were for the most part what might be called the ‘theoretical terms’ of the ‘physical system’ of everyday thought. Concerning such a theoretical physical term as topos, which is not directly linked to experience, Aristotle took apparent facts, i.e., views endorsed by the world at large or by some individual philosophers, as his starting point. We might call this, with Morsink¹⁵², a process of ‘conjectures and refutations,’ as long as it is kept in mind that in Aristotelian dialectic such ‘conjectures’ usually do not spring forth from the genius of the individual physicist, but are largely determined by the conventions of everyday thought and common parlance¹⁵³. We saw that the whole further process boiled down to the scrutinizing and refining of these ‘apparent features.’ A number of them were rejected for involving insoluble aporiai. Those features that survived the dialectical investigation were incorporated in Aristotle’s eventual ‘physical’ concept of place. All this involved the recognition that ordinary thought and common parlance did not use the term topos in a very coherent manner and that the actual task of the physicist was to eliminate those connotations of the term which, for all their prima facie plausibility, turned out to be of no use in the context of physical theory as a whole. Thus, the relation between the account of topos in the Cat. and that of Phys. A could be explained. In the Cat., Aristotle was using topos in one of the at-first-sight plausible senses of common parlance, which were reviewed and rejected in Phys. A. On the other hand, as section 4.5 showed, this unorthodox concept of topos as a three-dimensional self-subsistent extension crops up in a number of passages in the more sophisticated physical writings as well, probably because, as an inveterate façon de parler, it was still hard to banish altogether, and probably also because Aristotle’s own orthodox concept did not prove to be useful in all circumstances. As a whole, the present chapter seems to corroborate our thesis of chapter 1, viz., that Greek philosophical theories of space and place were closely linked to—and indeed started off from—the ways in which spatial terms might be used in ordinary language. As I concluded in chapter 3, it was a more or less unreflective use of some of the ambiguities of common parlance which was partly responsible for the obscurities in Plato’s receptacle account. In the present chapter, we noticed that in the course of his philosophical career, Aristotle did develop an awareness of the ambiguities and equivocations of everyday thinking and speaking and that for him, the conventions of ordinary language and the difficulties they involved constituted the raw material for his dialectical inquiries into the nature of such theoretical entities as place and space. [conclusion p. 189-191]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1158","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1158,"authors_free":[{"id":1731,"entry_id":1158,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2348,"entry_id":1158,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle"},"abstract":"The investigations of the present chapter took the different concepts of place (topos) as they appear in the Corpus Aristotelicum as their starting point. First, in sections 4.1-4.3, I discussed the relationship between the concept of topos which appears in the course of the discussion of the category poson in the Cat. and the famous definition of topos established in Phys. A. Though scholars like Duhem and Jammer, and more recently, King and Mendell have taken these passages seriously as containing an unambiguous account of physical place\u00b9\u2075\u00b9\u2014and have consequently tried their hardest to establish in what way these passages were related to the account in Phys. A\u2014I concluded that they present enough problems of their own to invalidate such claims.\r\n\r\nIf we take the now more or less universally accepted relative chronology of the surviving school works as established\u2014and I have not been able to find reasons for not doing so\u2014and if we may thus assume that the Cat. was written some five or ten years earlier than Phys. A, we may conclude that insofar as we might speak of a development of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy of place between the Cat. and Phys. A, this development should not be described as the substitution of one articulate view by another, but rather as a growing awareness of the problems inherent in the common-sense notions of place and space. This seemed to be confirmed by the findings of section 4.4.\r\n\r\nThere I investigated Aristotle\u2019s dialectical method in general and in Phys. A in particular. Against Owen on the one hand, and Morsink on the other, I argued that the data from which Aristotle\u2019s dialectical procedure in Phys. A took its start were for the most part what might be called the \u2018theoretical terms\u2019 of the \u2018physical system\u2019 of everyday thought. Concerning such a theoretical physical term as topos, which is not directly linked to experience, Aristotle took apparent facts, i.e., views endorsed by the world at large or by some individual philosophers, as his starting point.\r\n\r\nWe might call this, with Morsink\u00b9\u2075\u00b2, a process of \u2018conjectures and refutations,\u2019 as long as it is kept in mind that in Aristotelian dialectic such \u2018conjectures\u2019 usually do not spring forth from the genius of the individual physicist, but are largely determined by the conventions of everyday thought and common parlance\u00b9\u2075\u00b3. We saw that the whole further process boiled down to the scrutinizing and refining of these \u2018apparent features.\u2019 A number of them were rejected for involving insoluble aporiai. Those features that survived the dialectical investigation were incorporated in Aristotle\u2019s eventual \u2018physical\u2019 concept of place.\r\n\r\nAll this involved the recognition that ordinary thought and common parlance did not use the term topos in a very coherent manner and that the actual task of the physicist was to eliminate those connotations of the term which, for all their prima facie plausibility, turned out to be of no use in the context of physical theory as a whole. Thus, the relation between the account of topos in the Cat. and that of Phys. A could be explained. In the Cat., Aristotle was using topos in one of the at-first-sight plausible senses of common parlance, which were reviewed and rejected in Phys. A.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, as section 4.5 showed, this unorthodox concept of topos as a three-dimensional self-subsistent extension crops up in a number of passages in the more sophisticated physical writings as well, probably because, as an inveterate fa\u00e7on de parler, it was still hard to banish altogether, and probably also because Aristotle\u2019s own orthodox concept did not prove to be useful in all circumstances.\r\n\r\nAs a whole, the present chapter seems to corroborate our thesis of chapter 1, viz., that Greek philosophical theories of space and place were closely linked to\u2014and indeed started off from\u2014the ways in which spatial terms might be used in ordinary language. As I concluded in chapter 3, it was a more or less unreflective use of some of the ambiguities of common parlance which was partly responsible for the obscurities in Plato\u2019s receptacle account. In the present chapter, we noticed that in the course of his philosophical career, Aristotle did develop an awareness of the ambiguities and equivocations of everyday thinking and speaking and that for him, the conventions of ordinary language and the difficulties they involved constituted the raw material for his dialectical inquiries into the nature of such theoretical entities as place and space. [conclusion p. 189-191]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Vx1GYydMNj4awhc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1158,"section_of":232,"pages":"121-191","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":232,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Concepts of space in Greek thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra1995c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Concepts of Space in Greek Thought studies ancient Greek theories of physical space and place, in particular those of the classical and Hellenistic period. These theories are explained primarily with reference to the general philosophical or methodological framework within which they took shape. Special attention is paid to the nature and status of the sources. Two introductory chapters deal with the interrelations between various concepts of space and with Greek spatial terminology (including case studies of the Eleatics, Democritus and Epicurus). The remaining chapters contain detailed studies on the theories of space of Plato, Aristotle, the early Peripatetics and the Stoics.\r\nThe book is especially useful for historians of ancient physics, but may also be of interest to students of Aristotelian dialectic, ancient metaphysics, doxography, and medieval and early modern physics.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Goiwos39VOpY6H9","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":232,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"65","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1995]}

Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions, 1995
By: Algra, Keimpe A., Algra, Keimpe A. (Ed.)
Title Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1995
Published in Concepts of space in Greek thought
Pages 192-260
Categories no categories
Author(s) Algra, Keimpe A.
Editor(s) Algra, Keimpe A.
Translator(s)
In the present chapter, I have discussed several early Peripatetic attempts to come to terms with Aristotle’s theory of place. These were studied against the background of Aristotle’s theory of place itself and the obscurities and problems it involved. As was already noted in the previous chapter, Aristotle’s dialectical discussion in Phys. A exhibited a number of rough edges and loose ends. Thus, he nowhere explicitly reconciled his own two claims that place should have some power and that it should not be counted as one of the four familiar causes. In section 5.1, it was shown, or so I hope, that it is possible to reconstruct his position by a closer study of the dialectical structure of the discussion of topos in Phys. A and by adducing a number of other relevant passages from elsewhere in the Physics and the De Caelo. In the course of this chapter, it became clear that the resulting picture of the non-dynamic character of Aristotelian place was confirmed by the few remarks on this issue that have come down to us from Theophrastus and Eudemus. Two other problems left open by Aristotle—viz., the interrelated problems of the immobility of place and its ontological status—seem to have been more difficult to solve, as I have tried to show in section 5.2. They were discussed—together with a number of other problems, such as the problem of the emplacement of the heavens—by both Eudemus and Theophrastus. It appears—if we are allowed to draw some general conclusions from the scanty fragments that have come down to us—that each of these two pupils of Aristotle continued his master’s work in his own way: Theophrastus by continuing Aristotle’s critical dialectical approach, which involved his feeling free to sometimes add some rather radically alternative suggestions, and Eudemus by mainly filling out Aristotle’s own suggestions by adducing material from elsewhere in his work or by rephrasing Aristotle’s arguments in clearer terms. But even if Eudemus appears to have been the more ‘orthodox’ of the two, we should not overestimate the strength and the extent of Theophrastus’ dissent from Aristotle. It appears to have consisted mainly in his leaving the aporia of fr. 146 unanswered while putting forward the contents of fr. 149 as hardly more than a suggested alternative. Moreover, it is worth noting that, in a way, the conception of place as a relation between bodies—suggested in fr. 149—may be regarded as constituting a sensible elaboration rather than a complete rejection of the Aristotelian position. For insofar as it still defines the place of a thing in terms of its surroundings rather than in terms of a SidaxTijxa (whether in the Platonic or in the atomist sense), it remains on the Aristotelian side of the line drawn by Aristotle himself at Phys. A 209b1-7.¹⁴⁴ And unlike the alternative proposed by Strato, this conception of place could, in principle, be taken over ceteris paribus, leaving the rest of the system of Aristotelian physics intact. At the same time, it should be clear that Theophrastus’ solution, however hesitantly put forward, is far superior from a systematic point of view. It might even be claimed that it transforms Aristotle’s (and Eudemus’) rather naïve theory of place (focusing on the location of individual substances) into what we might call a theory of space (in principle allowing an account of the sum total of spatial relations within the cosmos).¹⁴⁵ This brings us to the curious fact that this novel conception of place did not have a wider appeal. As we saw, we actually have to wait for Damascius to take up Theophrastus’ suggestion. This is probably partly due to the fact that Theophrastus omitted to elaborate his point and that, as a consequence, it did not become widely known. In addition, the relational conception of place suggested by Theophrastus, if worked out properly, was much more technical and much farther removed from everyday usage and ordinary experience than its contemporary rivals. We need only look at Aristotle’s theory of topos and the way in which it was taken seriously in antiquity (and beyond) to see to what extent lack of technicality and closeness to common thinking and speaking were commonly counted as virtues. This, in turn, leads us to the question of the influence of (Eudemus and) Theophrastus in general. To some extent, the doubts, criticisms, and refinements of Aristotle’s theory put forward by Eudemus and Theophrastus may have proved seminal. At any rate, later critics of the Aristotelian position, such as Simplicius, found it worthwhile to refer to their ideas or to add quotations from their work. And the mere fact that Aristotle’s theory of place had come under attack within the Peripatos and that even a relatively faithful pupil like Eudemus had felt obliged to advocate some changes may have encouraged the much bolder dissent of a philosopher like Strato of Lampsacus. Yet, it should be stressed that the precise extent of the influence of these early Peripatetics is impossible to determine.¹⁴⁶ At any rate, there is no positive evidence that any of the later critics of Aristotle was directly influenced by Theophrastus or Eudemus, and it should be kept in mind that these critics probably did not even need their examples. Indeed, Aristotle himself provided enough ammunition—for example, by failing to answer the question of the ontological status of place, by failing to provide a more technical account of immobility,¹⁴⁷ and by attacking the most obvious rival view (place as a three-dimensional extension) with very unsatisfactory arguments. [conclusion p. 258-260]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1159","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1159,"authors_free":[{"id":1735,"entry_id":1159,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2347,"entry_id":1159,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions","main_title":{"title":"Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions"},"abstract":"In the present chapter, I have discussed several early Peripatetic attempts to come to terms with Aristotle\u2019s theory of place. These were studied against the background of Aristotle\u2019s theory of place itself and the obscurities and problems it involved. As was already noted in the previous chapter, Aristotle\u2019s dialectical discussion in Phys. A exhibited a number of rough edges and loose ends. Thus, he nowhere explicitly reconciled his own two claims that place should have some power and that it should not be counted as one of the four familiar causes.\r\n\r\nIn section 5.1, it was shown, or so I hope, that it is possible to reconstruct his position by a closer study of the dialectical structure of the discussion of topos in Phys. A and by adducing a number of other relevant passages from elsewhere in the Physics and the De Caelo. In the course of this chapter, it became clear that the resulting picture of the non-dynamic character of Aristotelian place was confirmed by the few remarks on this issue that have come down to us from Theophrastus and Eudemus.\r\n\r\nTwo other problems left open by Aristotle\u2014viz., the interrelated problems of the immobility of place and its ontological status\u2014seem to have been more difficult to solve, as I have tried to show in section 5.2. They were discussed\u2014together with a number of other problems, such as the problem of the emplacement of the heavens\u2014by both Eudemus and Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt appears\u2014if we are allowed to draw some general conclusions from the scanty fragments that have come down to us\u2014that each of these two pupils of Aristotle continued his master\u2019s work in his own way: Theophrastus by continuing Aristotle\u2019s critical dialectical approach, which involved his feeling free to sometimes add some rather radically alternative suggestions, and Eudemus by mainly filling out Aristotle\u2019s own suggestions by adducing material from elsewhere in his work or by rephrasing Aristotle\u2019s arguments in clearer terms.\r\n\r\nBut even if Eudemus appears to have been the more \u2018orthodox\u2019 of the two, we should not overestimate the strength and the extent of Theophrastus\u2019 dissent from Aristotle. It appears to have consisted mainly in his leaving the aporia of fr. 146 unanswered while putting forward the contents of fr. 149 as hardly more than a suggested alternative. Moreover, it is worth noting that, in a way, the conception of place as a relation between bodies\u2014suggested in fr. 149\u2014may be regarded as constituting a sensible elaboration rather than a complete rejection of the Aristotelian position.\r\n\r\nFor insofar as it still defines the place of a thing in terms of its surroundings rather than in terms of a SidaxTijxa (whether in the Platonic or in the atomist sense), it remains on the Aristotelian side of the line drawn by Aristotle himself at Phys. A 209b1-7.\u00b9\u2074\u2074 And unlike the alternative proposed by Strato, this conception of place could, in principle, be taken over ceteris paribus, leaving the rest of the system of Aristotelian physics intact.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, it should be clear that Theophrastus\u2019 solution, however hesitantly put forward, is far superior from a systematic point of view. It might even be claimed that it transforms Aristotle\u2019s (and Eudemus\u2019) rather na\u00efve theory of place (focusing on the location of individual substances) into what we might call a theory of space (in principle allowing an account of the sum total of spatial relations within the cosmos).\u00b9\u2074\u2075\r\n\r\nThis brings us to the curious fact that this novel conception of place did not have a wider appeal. As we saw, we actually have to wait for Damascius to take up Theophrastus\u2019 suggestion. This is probably partly due to the fact that Theophrastus omitted to elaborate his point and that, as a consequence, it did not become widely known. In addition, the relational conception of place suggested by Theophrastus, if worked out properly, was much more technical and much farther removed from everyday usage and ordinary experience than its contemporary rivals.\r\n\r\nWe need only look at Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos and the way in which it was taken seriously in antiquity (and beyond) to see to what extent lack of technicality and closeness to common thinking and speaking were commonly counted as virtues.\r\n\r\nThis, in turn, leads us to the question of the influence of (Eudemus and) Theophrastus in general. To some extent, the doubts, criticisms, and refinements of Aristotle\u2019s theory put forward by Eudemus and Theophrastus may have proved seminal. At any rate, later critics of the Aristotelian position, such as Simplicius, found it worthwhile to refer to their ideas or to add quotations from their work.\r\n\r\nAnd the mere fact that Aristotle\u2019s theory of place had come under attack within the Peripatos and that even a relatively faithful pupil like Eudemus had felt obliged to advocate some changes may have encouraged the much bolder dissent of a philosopher like Strato of Lampsacus. Yet, it should be stressed that the precise extent of the influence of these early Peripatetics is impossible to determine.\u00b9\u2074\u2076\r\n\r\nAt any rate, there is no positive evidence that any of the later critics of Aristotle was directly influenced by Theophrastus or Eudemus, and it should be kept in mind that these critics probably did not even need their examples. Indeed, Aristotle himself provided enough ammunition\u2014for example, by failing to answer the question of the ontological status of place, by failing to provide a more technical account of immobility,\u00b9\u2074\u2077 and by attacking the most obvious rival view (place as a three-dimensional extension) with very unsatisfactory arguments. [conclusion p. 258-260]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JNlEob1OVl4sohO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1159,"section_of":232,"pages":"192-260","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":232,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Concepts of space in Greek thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra1995c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Concepts of Space in Greek Thought studies ancient Greek theories of physical space and place, in particular those of the classical and Hellenistic period. These theories are explained primarily with reference to the general philosophical or methodological framework within which they took shape. Special attention is paid to the nature and status of the sources. Two introductory chapters deal with the interrelations between various concepts of space and with Greek spatial terminology (including case studies of the Eleatics, Democritus and Epicurus). The remaining chapters contain detailed studies on the theories of space of Plato, Aristotle, the early Peripatetics and the Stoics.\r\nThe book is especially useful for historians of ancient physics, but may also be of interest to students of Aristotelian dialectic, ancient metaphysics, doxography, and medieval and early modern physics.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Goiwos39VOpY6H9","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":232,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"65","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1995]}

Counting Plato's Principles, 1995
By: Sharples, Robert W., Ayres, Lewis (Ed.)
Title Counting Plato's Principles
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1995
Published in The Passionate Intellect. Essays on the Transformation of Classical Tradition
Pages 67-82
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s) Ayres, Lewis
Translator(s)
The classification of physical theories by the number of principles involved goes back to Aristotle (Physics 1.2), in a less formal way to Plato (Sophist 242c-d), and perhaps even further to the period of the Sophists. It is still echoed in modern textbooks on the Presocratics. What is perhaps less familiar is that, naturally enough, this approach was not, in antiquity, confined to the Presocratics. The present paper is concerned with ancient attempts to apply such an analysis to one notable successor of the Presocratics, namely Plato. It is greatly indebted to the work of scholars expert in the field, notably John Dillon and Harold Tarrant. However, I hope that it may present familiar material in a new perspective and, even if its main conclusion is highly speculative, stimulate further thought and debate on a period of the history of philosophy which, with some notable exceptions, has been too little studied in English-speaking countries. In his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics 1.2, Simplicius, dealing with those who postulated a limited plurality of principles, mentions those who asserted two (Parmenides in the Way of Seeming and the Stoics), three (Aristotle himself, later in Physics 1), and four (Empedocles). He then deals with Plato and concludes with the Pythagoreans, who, he says, recognized ten principles—the numbers of the decad, or the ten pairs in the Table of Opposites. Where Plato is concerned, Simplicius first states his own view: that Plato postulated three causes (kurias) in the strict sense and three auxiliary causes (sunaitia). The causes in the strict sense are “the maker, the paradigm, and the end,” while the three auxiliary causes are “the matter, the form, and the instrument.” (Here, “form” must refer to the Aristotelian immanent form as opposed to the transcendent Platonic paradigm.) But Simplicius then goes on to cite two other views. Theophrastus, he says, assigned only two principles to Plato: matter, called “receptive of all things” (clearly the Receptacle of Timaeus 51A, generally equated with matter by later interpreters), and the cause and source of movement, which Theophrastus says Plato “attaches to the power of god and of the good.” Alexander of Aphrodisias, however, attributed to Plato three principles: “the matter, the maker, and the paradigm.” This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Timaeus, the “maker” being the Demiurge. For if a principle is that which is primary, not preceded by anything else, then, on a literal interpretation of the Timaeus, the Demiurge, the Forms (which he uses as his model), and the Receptacle each seem to be ultimates, not derived from any further principle. Nothing is said in the Timaeus about the derivation of the Forms from the One or the Good; and the Receptacle does not derive from another principle in the way Neoplatonist Matter derives from the One. Indeed, Dorrie contrasts the “paratactic” nature of this three-principles interpretation—treating the principles as equal and co-ordinate—with the “hierarchic” views of Xenocrates, and sees the former as holding back the development of transcendence in Platonism. Certain passages of the Timaeus suggest rather a two-principles interpretation, but here the principles would be the Receptacle and the Forms, rather than the Demiurge. [introduction p. 67-70]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1026","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1026,"authors_free":[{"id":1549,"entry_id":1026,"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":1550,"entry_id":1026,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":466,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ayres, Lewis","free_first_name":"Lewis","free_last_name":"Ayres","norm_person":{"id":466,"first_name":"Lewis","last_name":"Ayres,","full_name":"Ayres, Lewis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138237336","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Counting Plato's Principles","main_title":{"title":"Counting Plato's Principles"},"abstract":"The classification of physical theories by the number of principles involved goes back to Aristotle (Physics 1.2), in a less formal way to Plato (Sophist 242c-d), and perhaps even further to the period of the Sophists. It is still echoed in modern textbooks on the Presocratics. What is perhaps less familiar is that, naturally enough, this approach was not, in antiquity, confined to the Presocratics. The present paper is concerned with ancient attempts to apply such an analysis to one notable successor of the Presocratics, namely Plato. It is greatly indebted to the work of scholars expert in the field, notably John Dillon and Harold Tarrant. However, I hope that it may present familiar material in a new perspective and, even if its main conclusion is highly speculative, stimulate further thought and debate on a period of the history of philosophy which, with some notable exceptions, has been too little studied in English-speaking countries.\r\n\r\nIn his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 1.2, Simplicius, dealing with those who postulated a limited plurality of principles, mentions those who asserted two (Parmenides in the Way of Seeming and the Stoics), three (Aristotle himself, later in Physics 1), and four (Empedocles). He then deals with Plato and concludes with the Pythagoreans, who, he says, recognized ten principles\u2014the numbers of the decad, or the ten pairs in the Table of Opposites.\r\n\r\nWhere Plato is concerned, Simplicius first states his own view: that Plato postulated three causes (kurias) in the strict sense and three auxiliary causes (sunaitia). The causes in the strict sense are \u201cthe maker, the paradigm, and the end,\u201d while the three auxiliary causes are \u201cthe matter, the form, and the instrument.\u201d (Here, \u201cform\u201d must refer to the Aristotelian immanent form as opposed to the transcendent Platonic paradigm.) But Simplicius then goes on to cite two other views.\r\n\r\nTheophrastus, he says, assigned only two principles to Plato: matter, called \u201creceptive of all things\u201d (clearly the Receptacle of Timaeus 51A, generally equated with matter by later interpreters), and the cause and source of movement, which Theophrastus says Plato \u201cattaches to the power of god and of the good.\u201d Alexander of Aphrodisias, however, attributed to Plato three principles: \u201cthe matter, the maker, and the paradigm.\u201d This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Timaeus, the \u201cmaker\u201d being the Demiurge. For if a principle is that which is primary, not preceded by anything else, then, on a literal interpretation of the Timaeus, the Demiurge, the Forms (which he uses as his model), and the Receptacle each seem to be ultimates, not derived from any further principle.\r\n\r\nNothing is said in the Timaeus about the derivation of the Forms from the One or the Good; and the Receptacle does not derive from another principle in the way Neoplatonist Matter derives from the One. Indeed, Dorrie contrasts the \u201cparatactic\u201d nature of this three-principles interpretation\u2014treating the principles as equal and co-ordinate\u2014with the \u201chierarchic\u201d views of Xenocrates, and sees the former as holding back the development of transcendence in Platonism. Certain passages of the Timaeus suggest rather a two-principles interpretation, but here the principles would be the Receptacle and the Forms, rather than the Demiurge. [introduction p. 67-70]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/puTtXSWDrrAPkL9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":466,"full_name":"Ayres, Lewis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1026,"section_of":318,"pages":"67-82","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":318,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Passionate Intellect. Essays on the Transformation of Classical Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ayres1995","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Ian Kidd, of the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, has long been known as a world-class scholar of ancient philosophy and of Posidonius, in particular. Through his long struggle with the fragments of Posidonius, Kidd has done more than any other scholar of ancient philosophy to dispel the myth of \"Pan-Posidonianism.\" He has presented a clearer picture of the Posidonius to whom we may have access. The Passionate Intellect is both a Festschrift offered to Professor Kidd and an important collection of essays on the transformation of classical traditions.\r\n\r\nThe bulk of this volume is built around the theme of Kidd's own inaugural lecture at St. Andrews, \"The Passionate Intellect.\" Many of the contributions follow this theme through by examining how individual people and texts influenced the direction of various traditions. The chapters cover the whole of the classical and late antique periods, including the main genres of classical literature and history, and the gradual emergence of Christian literature and themes in late antiquity.\r\n\r\nMany of the papers naturally concentrate on ancient philosophy and its legacy. Others deal with ancient literary theory, history, poetry, and drama. Most of the papers deal with their subjects at some length and are significant contributions in their own right. The contributors to this collection include key figures hi contemporary classical scholarship, including: C. Carey (London); C. J. Classen (Gottingen); J. Dillon (Dublin); K. J. Dover (St. Andrews); W. W. Fortenbaugh (Rutgers); H. M. Hine (St. Andrews); J. Mansfeld (Utrecht); R. Janko and R. Sharpies (London); and J. S. Richardson (Edinburgh). This book will be invaluable to philosophers, classicists, and cultural historians. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2DA4PTzcMdBrmHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":318,"pubplace":"New Brunswick \u2013 London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1995]}

Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d’Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel, 1995
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Moreschini, Claudio (Ed.)
Title Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d’Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1995
Published in Esegesi, parafrasi e compilazione in età tardoantica: atti del terzo Convegno dell'Associazione di studi tardoantichi
Pages 175-185
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s) Moreschini, Claudio
Translator(s)
Dans mon livre Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin : Hiéroclès et Simplicius¹, j’ai expliqué d’une manière détaillée la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète dans l’enseignement néoplatonicien. Il s’agissait de répondre à la question suivante : comment le néoplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du stoïcien Épictète, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la métripathie aristotélicienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l’argumentation développée que j’ai donnée dans mon livre et je me borne à en résumer ici les principaux résultats. Les néoplatoniciens étaient persuadés qu’il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les études de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette manière purifié son âme, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C’est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (Élias) dans les introductions à leurs commentaires sur les Catégories d’Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualités requises du bon auditeur (ou étudiant)². Mais pour cette formation morale pré-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Catégories l’expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif³, une instruction qui soit une catéchèse purement parénétique, sans démonstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius⁴, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l’œuvre d’Aristote, par laquelle commençaient les études philosophiques des néoplatoniciens. Les traités d’Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de démonstrations, dont la compréhension présuppose la maîtrise de la méthode apodictique, que le débutant en philosophie ne possède pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les Éthiques d’Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction éthique préparatoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme écrite ou non écrite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens. La dernière allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le célèbre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement été commenté par les néoplatoniciens Hiéroclès, Jamblique⁵ et Proclus⁶. David (Élias), pour sa part, nomme les parénèses d’Isocrate⁷, visant de toute évidence les discours À Démonicos et À Nicoclès. Or, au début de son commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète⁸, Simplicius précise que le genre littéraire de cet ouvrage est celui des « courtes sentences » et des « maximes morales », et il ajoute que ce genre littéraire est analogue à celui que les pythagoriciens appellent préceptes (προστακτικαί). Nous pouvons donc être assurés de tenir là le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d’Épictète. [introduction p. 51-52]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1498","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1498,"authors_free":[{"id":2598,"entry_id":1498,"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}},{"id":2599,"entry_id":1498,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":556,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Moreschini, Claudio","free_first_name":"Claudio","free_last_name":"Moreschini","norm_person":{"id":556,"first_name":"Claudio","last_name":"Moreschini","full_name":"Moreschini, Claudio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028672292","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d\u2019Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel","main_title":{"title":"Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d\u2019Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel"},"abstract":"Dans mon livre Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin : Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius\u00b9, j\u2019ai expliqu\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re d\u00e9taill\u00e9e la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te dans l\u2019enseignement n\u00e9oplatonicien.\r\n\r\nIl s\u2019agissait de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 la question suivante : comment le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du sto\u00efcien \u00c9pict\u00e8te, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la m\u00e9tripathie aristot\u00e9licienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l\u2019argumentation d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e que j\u2019ai donn\u00e9e dans mon livre et je me borne \u00e0 en r\u00e9sumer ici les principaux r\u00e9sultats.\r\n\r\nLes n\u00e9oplatoniciens \u00e9taient persuad\u00e9s qu\u2019il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les \u00e9tudes de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette mani\u00e8re purifi\u00e9 son \u00e2me, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C\u2019est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (\u00c9lias) dans les introductions \u00e0 leurs commentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualit\u00e9s requises du bon auditeur (ou \u00e9tudiant)\u00b2.\r\n\r\nMais pour cette formation morale pr\u00e9-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Cat\u00e9gories l\u2019expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif\u00b3, une instruction qui soit une cat\u00e9ch\u00e8se purement par\u00e9n\u00e9tique, sans d\u00e9monstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius\u2074, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote, par laquelle commen\u00e7aient les \u00e9tudes philosophiques des n\u00e9oplatoniciens.\r\n\r\nLes trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de d\u00e9monstrations, dont la compr\u00e9hension pr\u00e9suppose la ma\u00eetrise de la m\u00e9thode apodictique, que le d\u00e9butant en philosophie ne poss\u00e8de pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les \u00c9thiques d\u2019Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme \u00e9crite ou non \u00e9crite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens.\r\n\r\nLa derni\u00e8re allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement \u00e9t\u00e9 comment\u00e9 par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s, Jamblique\u2075 et Proclus\u2076. David (\u00c9lias), pour sa part, nomme les par\u00e9n\u00e8ses d\u2019Isocrate\u2077, visant de toute \u00e9vidence les discours \u00c0 D\u00e9monicos et \u00c0 Nicocl\u00e8s.\r\n\r\nOr, au d\u00e9but de son commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te\u2078, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que le genre litt\u00e9raire de cet ouvrage est celui des \u00ab courtes sentences \u00bb et des \u00ab maximes morales \u00bb, et il ajoute que ce genre litt\u00e9raire est analogue \u00e0 celui que les pythagoriciens appellent pr\u00e9ceptes (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af).\r\n\r\nNous pouvons donc \u00eatre assur\u00e9s de tenir l\u00e0 le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te. [introduction p. 51-52]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uXmnTeKsGQf7VkO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":556,"full_name":"Moreschini, Claudio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1498,"section_of":1497,"pages":"175-185","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1497,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"it","title":"Esegesi, parafrasi e compilazione in et\u00e0 tardoantica: atti del terzo Convegno dell'Associazione di studi tardoantichi","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Moreschini1995","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9TdVasyOFO7lHMY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1497,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"M. D'Auria","series":"Collectanea (D'Auria)","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1995]}

Platonism in late antiquity, 1993
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.)
Title Platonism in late antiquity
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1993
Published in Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism
Pages 1-27
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Translator(s)
The Platonism of late antiquity is, of course, what we now call Neoplatonism. That term is a modern one. ‘Neoplatonist’ and ‘Neoplatonic’ first appeared in English and French in the 1830s. All the philosophers whose work comes under this heading thought of themselves simply as Platonists, and the doctrine they were expounding as the Platonic philosophy. For Plotinus, the man normally thought of as the founder of this type of philosophy, all that he might have to say had been said before, though it might not have been set out explicitly, and could be found in the text of Plato (cf. V 1.8.10-14). For Proclus in the 5th century, after two hundred years of this kind of thinking, the same view of what he was doing still stood, as it did for Simplicius and Damascius into the 6th. Thus, Proclus, in the preface to his Platonic Theology, could write of his whole enterprise, and that of his Neoplatonic predecessors, as the understanding and exposition of the truths in Plato. Given our modern views of Plato and Aristotle, as working philosophers whose views developed and whose answers to questions were not always the same, it is important to realize that their ancient interpreters looked at them as creators of fixed systems: though they might recognize that they did not always say the same things about the same questions, they saw such apparent inconsistencies as problems about the relation of disparate statements to an assumed single doctrine rather than about how one different doctrine might relate to another. Before going on, I should perhaps offer some explanations and an apology. The apology is to those who know a great deal, or even a little, about Neoplatonism to whom some of what I shall say is basic common knowledge. The explanations are two. First, that I am taking late antiquity to start in the 3rd century A.D., following an old Cambridge custom of taking ancient Greek philosophy to have ended with the death of Marcus Aurelius. The second is to say what I am going to do here. It relates to the first. When this view of the limits of classical antiquity still held, the study of Neoplatonism was regarded as rather disreputable, in the English-speaking world at least, and the few apparent exceptions—Elements of Theology, still one of the great achievements of Neoplatonic scholarship, and the first modern commentary on a Neoplatonic work—was seen not so much as evidence that there was here a rich field for new scholarly endeavor as an indication of that scholar’s eccentricity. The common attitude found its expression in the preface to the first volume of W.K.C. Guthrie’s History of Greek Philosophy, where he relegated Neoplatonism to the realms of the unphilosophical and the un-Greek: "With Plotinus and his followers, as well as with their Christian contemporaries, there does seem to enter a new religious spirit which is not fundamentally Greek..." That was in 1962. What I want to do is to look at some of the characteristics of Neoplatonism and to see how the picture of this philosophy, or rather group of philosophies, has changed during the last three decades. I think most would now agree it is basically Greek. As to the importance of the religious and soteriological elements in it, which for many of its adherents was rather small in any case, that is arguable, and its significance depends on the extent to which one regards other forms of ancient philosophy as enquiries into how one should live the best life either in relation to one’s own society or to the gods which that society recognized. What is important is that most of the Neoplatonic writings we have are clearly philosophical rather than religious or otherwise concerned with the supernatural. I shall therefore take it for granted that we are talking about philosophy, and not any of the other things with which Neoplatonism has sometimes been associated, and which may undoubtedly be found in some of its products. [introduction p. 1-2]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1126","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1126,"authors_free":[{"id":1701,"entry_id":1126,"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":2440,"entry_id":1126,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"Platonism in late antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Platonism in late antiquity"},"abstract":"The Platonism of late antiquity is, of course, what we now call Neoplatonism. That term is a modern one. \u2018Neoplatonist\u2019 and \u2018Neoplatonic\u2019 first appeared in English and French in the 1830s. All the philosophers whose work comes under this heading thought of themselves simply as Platonists, and the doctrine they were expounding as the Platonic philosophy. For Plotinus, the man normally thought of as the founder of this type of philosophy, all that he might have to say had been said before, though it might not have been set out explicitly, and could be found in the text of Plato (cf. V 1.8.10-14). For Proclus in the 5th century, after two hundred years of this kind of thinking, the same view of what he was doing still stood, as it did for Simplicius and Damascius into the 6th. Thus, Proclus, in the preface to his Platonic Theology, could write of his whole enterprise, and that of his Neoplatonic predecessors, as the understanding and exposition of the truths in Plato.\r\n\r\nGiven our modern views of Plato and Aristotle, as working philosophers whose views developed and whose answers to questions were not always the same, it is important to realize that their ancient interpreters looked at them as creators of fixed systems: though they might recognize that they did not always say the same things about the same questions, they saw such apparent inconsistencies as problems about the relation of disparate statements to an assumed single doctrine rather than about how one different doctrine might relate to another.\r\n\r\nBefore going on, I should perhaps offer some explanations and an apology. The apology is to those who know a great deal, or even a little, about Neoplatonism to whom some of what I shall say is basic common knowledge. The explanations are two.\r\n\r\nFirst, that I am taking late antiquity to start in the 3rd century A.D., following an old Cambridge custom of taking ancient Greek philosophy to have ended with the death of Marcus Aurelius. The second is to say what I am going to do here. It relates to the first. When this view of the limits of classical antiquity still held, the study of Neoplatonism was regarded as rather disreputable, in the English-speaking world at least, and the few apparent exceptions\u2014Elements of Theology, still one of the great achievements of Neoplatonic scholarship, and the first modern commentary on a Neoplatonic work\u2014was seen not so much as evidence that there was here a rich field for new scholarly endeavor as an indication of that scholar\u2019s eccentricity. The common attitude found its expression in the preface to the first volume of W.K.C. Guthrie\u2019s History of Greek Philosophy, where he relegated Neoplatonism to the realms of the unphilosophical and the un-Greek:\r\n\r\n\"With Plotinus and his followers, as well as with their Christian contemporaries, there does seem to enter a new religious spirit which is not fundamentally Greek...\"\r\n\r\nThat was in 1962.\r\n\r\nWhat I want to do is to look at some of the characteristics of Neoplatonism and to see how the picture of this philosophy, or rather group of philosophies, has changed during the last three decades. I think most would now agree it is basically Greek. As to the importance of the religious and soteriological elements in it, which for many of its adherents was rather small in any case, that is arguable, and its significance depends on the extent to which one regards other forms of ancient philosophy as enquiries into how one should live the best life either in relation to one\u2019s own society or to the gods which that society recognized. What is important is that most of the Neoplatonic writings we have are clearly philosophical rather than religious or otherwise concerned with the supernatural. I shall therefore take it for granted that we are talking about philosophy, and not any of the other things with which Neoplatonism has sometimes been associated, and which may undoubtedly be found in some of its products.\r\n[introduction p. 1-2]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A5Y90b8NYMkY9Vs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1126,"section_of":214,"pages":"1-27","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hj2vOznXoMqSzco","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1993]}

Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur Überlieferung des Anführungszeichens, 1993
By: Wildberg, Christian, Berger, Friederike (Ed.), Brockmann, Christian (Ed.), De Gregorio, Giuseppe (Ed.), Ghisu, Maria Irene (Ed.), Kotzabassi, Sofia (Ed.), Noack, Beate (Ed.)
Title Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur Überlieferung des Anführungszeichens
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1993
Published in Symbolae Berolinenses. Für Dieter Harlfinger
Pages 187-199
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wildberg, Christian
Editor(s) Berger, Friederike , Brockmann, Christian , De Gregorio, Giuseppe , Ghisu, Maria Irene , Kotzabassi, Sofia , Noack, Beate
Translator(s)
Gewiss, ein lückenloser Beweis der Ursprünglichkeit der Anführungszeichen im Mardanus 226, geschweige denn für die Zeichensetzung im Allgemeinen, ist hiermit nicht gelungen und war in Anbetracht der Quellenlage auch gar nicht möglich. Dennoch, die aus diesen Beobachtungen zu ziehende Schlussfolgerung ist, dass die in mittelalterlichen Handschriften so häufigen und eindeutigen Anführungszeichen keineswegs im Namen der Textkritik ignoriert werden sollten. Möglicherweise ließe sich dieselbe Forderung mit ähnlicher Berechtigung auch für andere Zeichen geltend machen. Jedenfalls sollte man ernsthaft in Betracht ziehen, dass gerade in Abschriften aus Texten spätantiker Zeit Zeichen überliefert sein können, die nicht nur für das korrekte Verständnis eines Textes unverzichtbar sind, sondern auch dem Autor selbst, und nicht irgendeinem gelehrten Schreiber viel späterer Zeit, zu verdanken sind. Es sei daher abschließend an dieser Stelle und achtzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen der Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde an einen ganz ähnlichen Hinweis Ulrich Wilckens erinnert: "Einige Interpunktionszeichen wird man in den Urkunden selten finden ... Dagegen war es von den frühesten Zeiten an eine weitverbreitete Sitte, Sätze oder Satzteile oder gar Wörter durch größere oder kleinere Spatien zu trennen. Auf diese in den Editionen noch viel zu wenig zum Ausdruck kommende Interpunktion möchte ich die Papyrusleser ganz besonders aufmerksam machen, da durch sie uns oft die authentische Interpretation des Schreibers an die Hand gegeben wird." [conclusion p. 196-197]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"722","_score":null,"_source":{"id":722,"authors_free":[{"id":1076,"entry_id":722,"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":1077,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":361,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Berger, Friederike","free_first_name":"Friederike","free_last_name":"Berger","norm_person":{"id":361,"first_name":"Friederike","last_name":"Berger","full_name":"Berger, Friederike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1216192375","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2415,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2417,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":474,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"De Gregorio, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"De Gregorio","norm_person":{"id":474,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"De Gregorio","full_name":"De Gregorio, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1056147482","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2419,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":475,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ghisu, Maria Irene","free_first_name":"Maria Irene","free_last_name":"Ghisu","norm_person":{"id":475,"first_name":"Maria Irene","last_name":"Ghisu","full_name":"Ghisu, Maria Irene","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2421,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":476,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kotzabassi, Sofia","free_first_name":"Sofia","free_last_name":"Kotzabassi","norm_person":{"id":476,"first_name":"Sofia","last_name":"Kotzabassi","full_name":"Kotzabassi, Sofia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1030288763","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2423,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":477,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Noack, Beate","free_first_name":"Beate","free_last_name":"Noack","norm_person":{"id":477,"first_name":"Beate","last_name":"Noack","full_name":"Noack, Beate","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1223988120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur \u00dcberlieferung des Anf\u00fchrungszeichens","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur \u00dcberlieferung des Anf\u00fchrungszeichens"},"abstract":"Gewiss, ein l\u00fcckenloser Beweis der Urspr\u00fcnglichkeit der Anf\u00fchrungszeichen im Mardanus 226, geschweige denn f\u00fcr die Zeichensetzung im Allgemeinen, ist hiermit nicht gelungen und war in Anbetracht der Quellenlage auch gar nicht m\u00f6glich. Dennoch, die aus diesen Beobachtungen zu ziehende Schlussfolgerung ist, dass die in mittelalterlichen Handschriften so h\u00e4ufigen und eindeutigen Anf\u00fchrungszeichen keineswegs im Namen der Textkritik ignoriert werden sollten. M\u00f6glicherweise lie\u00dfe sich dieselbe Forderung mit \u00e4hnlicher Berechtigung auch f\u00fcr andere Zeichen geltend machen.\r\n\r\nJedenfalls sollte man ernsthaft in Betracht ziehen, dass gerade in Abschriften aus Texten sp\u00e4tantiker Zeit Zeichen \u00fcberliefert sein k\u00f6nnen, die nicht nur f\u00fcr das korrekte Verst\u00e4ndnis eines Textes unverzichtbar sind, sondern auch dem Autor selbst, und nicht irgendeinem gelehrten Schreiber viel sp\u00e4terer Zeit, zu verdanken sind. Es sei daher abschlie\u00dfend an dieser Stelle und achtzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen der Grundz\u00fcge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde an einen ganz \u00e4hnlichen Hinweis Ulrich Wilckens erinnert:\r\n\r\n\"Einige Interpunktionszeichen wird man in den Urkunden selten finden ... Dagegen war es von den fr\u00fchesten Zeiten an eine weitverbreitete Sitte, S\u00e4tze oder Satzteile oder gar W\u00f6rter durch gr\u00f6\u00dfere oder kleinere Spatien zu trennen. Auf diese in den Editionen noch viel zu wenig zum Ausdruck kommende Interpunktion m\u00f6chte ich die Papyrusleser ganz besonders aufmerksam machen, da durch sie uns oft die authentische Interpretation des Schreibers an die Hand gegeben wird.\" [conclusion p. 196-197]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cjMqjU5dghJg6Mi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":361,"full_name":"Berger, Friederike","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":474,"full_name":"De Gregorio, Giuseppe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":475,"full_name":"Ghisu, Maria Irene","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":476,"full_name":"Kotzabassi, Sofia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":477,"full_name":"Noack, Beate","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":722,"section_of":353,"pages":"187-199","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":353,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Symbolae Berolinenses. F\u00fcr Dieter Harlfinger","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Berger1993","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WynC9SYoNF55LD8","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":353,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1993]}

La défense de Platon contre Aristote par les néoplatoniciens, 1993
By: Romano, Francesco, Dixsaut, Monique (Ed.)
Title La défense de Platon contre Aristote par les néoplatoniciens
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1993
Published in Contre Platon. Tome I: Le Platonisme Dévoilé
Pages 175-195
Categories no categories
Author(s) Romano, Francesco
Editor(s) Dixsaut, Monique
Translator(s)
Pour aborder le problème de la défense de Platon contre Aristote par les Néoplatoniciens, il est nécessaire d’opérer des distinctions à la fois historiques et théoriques ; il faut en effet tenir compte tant du développement chronologique de la pensée néoplatonicienne que des différences pouvant exister d’une école néoplatonicienne à l’autre. Il semble, par exemple, que Jamblique et Proclus aient adopté des positions sensiblement divergentes sur le problème de savoir si Aristote avait attaqué la théorie des Idées dans sa formulation platonicienne ou dans la fausse interprétation que certains Platoniciens en avaient donnée. D’après ce que nous disent David [Elias], d’une part : Δεῖ αὐτὸν μὴ συμπάσχειν τῷ Πλάτωνι· συνδιδοῖσι τῷ πεπονθέν· Ἰάμβλιχος· οὗτος γὰρ προσπάσχων τῷ Πλάτωνι συνδιδοῖσι τῷ Ἀριστοτέλει ὅτι οὐκ ἀντιλέγει τῷ Πλάτωνι διὰ τὰς ἰδέας (« L’exégète ne doit pas sympathiser avec une quelconque secte philosophique à la manière de Jamblique. Celui-ci, en effet, prévenu en faveur de Platon, concéda également à Aristote de ne pas avoir contredit Platon au sujet des Idées »), et Étienne d’Alexandrie [Ps. Philopon], d’autre part, Jamblique aurait soutenu qu’Aristote n’avait pas réfuté Platon à propos des Idées. Tandis que Proclus – si l’on en croit Philopon (De aetern. mundi, 31), faisant allusion au livre, perdu, par lequel Proclus réfutait les objections d’Aristote contre le Timée (mais Syrianus aurait fait de même avant Proclus, d’après le témoignage d’Asclepius de Tralle) – aurait, pour sa part, été convaincu qu’Aristote avait combattu et réfuté Platon également sur ce point. Comme nous allons le voir (texte 2), Proclus parle des Péripatéticiens en général, mais il n’est pas possible d’exclure Aristote. Cela dit, il faut toutefois se hâter d’ajouter que, malgré leurs divergences, presque tous les Néoplatoniciens s’accordent à considérer comme leur tâche propre de défendre Platon contre les attaques d’Aristote et des Péripatéticiens, afin au moins d’éliminer les malentendus et les interprétations perverses que ceux-ci exploitent souvent pour opposer les deux philosophes. Autrement dit, les différentes positions prises tour à tour par l’un ou l’autre des Néoplatoniciens, ou mieux par l’un ou l’autre des courants scolastiques néoplatoniciens, tiennent à des nuances argumentatives. Elles cherchent davantage à démontrer la concordance entre Platon et Aristote qu’à viser l’objectif principal commandant n’importe quelle exégèse néoplatonicienne du texte d’Aristote : la faire, d’une façon institutionnelle, servir le plus possible à la lecture et à l’étude des textes platoniciens. Si nous voulons comprendre l’esprit de certaines positions, aussi bien théoriques qu’historiques, adoptées par les Néoplatoniciens, il nous faut donc partir d’une distinction préliminaire entre, d’une part, l’attitude polémique de ceux qui tendent à souligner les divergences plus ou moins substantielles entre Platon et Aristote – donc s’efforcent de réfuter explicitement et sans équivoque les objections d’Aristote et des Péripatéticiens contre Platon – et, d’autre part, l’attitude critique (mais peu ou guère critique en apparence) de ceux qui cherchent surtout à minimiser la « puissance destructrice » des objections aristotéliciennes et péripatéticiennes, au point de ramener la position réelle d’Aristote à celle de Platon. En d’autres termes, il s’agit ou bien de défendre Platon contre les contradictions ou absurdités présumées dont on veut le rendre coupable, ou bien d’interpréter d’une façon compatible avec la « vérité » platonicienne ses apparentes discordances avec ce qu’on suppose être la « vérité » aristotélicienne. Mais en aucun cas Aristote ne doit et ne peut l’emporter sur Platon, soit parce que sa critique de Platon n’atteint pas sa cible ou pousse à mal le comprendre, soit parce que le sens que l’on accorde à cette critique n’est pas celui qu’elle possède effectivement ou n’est pas le seul qu’elle puisse posséder. L’exégète néoplatonicien, donc, peut obtenir le même résultat en suivant deux voies différentes : l’important est de montrer que l’opposition présumée d’Aristote à Platon peut être dépassée et que l’étude du texte d’Aristote peut servir à faciliter la compréhension du texte de Platon (pour atteindre ce but, on doit parfois sacrifier les anciens Académiciens, tenus pour être la cible des objections d’Aristote : en ce cas, ce sont les anciens disciples de Platon qui auront mal compris le maître commun). Tout cela signifie que n’importe quelle exégèse du texte aristotélicien (de n’importe quel texte aristotélicien) fait partie de l’exégèse plus générale du texte platonicien. C’était là une des règles de l’enseignement néoplatonicien, donc un élément doctrinal commun à tous les Néoplatoniciens. On pourrait faire, peut-être, une exception pour Damascius, qui, on le sait, contestait souvent la légitimité de l’exégèse prédominante (à cette époque, celle de Proclus) des textes platoniciens et aristotéliciens. Mais il est temps d’entrer dans le vif du sujet. Nous allons examiner six textes tirés respectivement l’un de Simplicius, quatre de Proclus, et un autre d’Ammonius ; après en avoir donné la traduction (la mienne, en l’absence d’indication contraire), j’en viendrai aux conséquences de mon interprétation. [introduction p. 175-177]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1057","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1057,"authors_free":[{"id":1605,"entry_id":1057,"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}},{"id":1606,"entry_id":1057,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":306,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Dixsaut, Monique","free_first_name":"Monique","free_last_name":"Dixsaut","norm_person":{"id":306,"first_name":"Monique","last_name":"Dixsaut","full_name":"Dixsaut, Monique","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114771979","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"La d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"Pour aborder le probl\u00e8me de la d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les N\u00e9oplatoniciens, il est n\u00e9cessaire d\u2019op\u00e9rer des distinctions \u00e0 la fois historiques et th\u00e9oriques ; il faut en effet tenir compte tant du d\u00e9veloppement chronologique de la pens\u00e9e n\u00e9oplatonicienne que des diff\u00e9rences pouvant exister d\u2019une \u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne \u00e0 l\u2019autre. Il semble, par exemple, que Jamblique et Proclus aient adopt\u00e9 des positions sensiblement divergentes sur le probl\u00e8me de savoir si Aristote avait attaqu\u00e9 la th\u00e9orie des Id\u00e9es dans sa formulation platonicienne ou dans la fausse interpr\u00e9tation que certains Platoniciens en avaient donn\u00e9e.\r\nD\u2019apr\u00e8s ce que nous disent David [Elias], d\u2019une part :\r\n\u0394\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f38\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2\r\n(\u00ab L\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te ne doit pas sympathiser avec une quelconque secte philosophique \u00e0 la mani\u00e8re de Jamblique. Celui-ci, en effet, pr\u00e9venu en faveur de Platon, conc\u00e9da \u00e9galement \u00e0 Aristote de ne pas avoir contredit Platon au sujet des Id\u00e9es \u00bb), et \u00c9tienne d\u2019Alexandrie [Ps. Philopon], d\u2019autre part, Jamblique aurait soutenu qu\u2019Aristote n\u2019avait pas r\u00e9fut\u00e9 Platon \u00e0 propos des Id\u00e9es. Tandis que Proclus \u2013 si l\u2019on en croit Philopon (De aetern. mundi, 31), faisant allusion au livre, perdu, par lequel Proclus r\u00e9futait les objections d\u2019Aristote contre le Tim\u00e9e (mais Syrianus aurait fait de m\u00eame avant Proclus, d\u2019apr\u00e8s le t\u00e9moignage d\u2019Asclepius de Tralle) \u2013 aurait, pour sa part, \u00e9t\u00e9 convaincu qu\u2019Aristote avait combattu et r\u00e9fut\u00e9 Platon \u00e9galement sur ce point.\r\nComme nous allons le voir (texte 2), Proclus parle des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, mais il n\u2019est pas possible d\u2019exclure Aristote. Cela dit, il faut toutefois se h\u00e2ter d\u2019ajouter que, malgr\u00e9 leurs divergences, presque tous les N\u00e9oplatoniciens s\u2019accordent \u00e0 consid\u00e9rer comme leur t\u00e2che propre de d\u00e9fendre Platon contre les attaques d\u2019Aristote et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, afin au moins d\u2019\u00e9liminer les malentendus et les interpr\u00e9tations perverses que ceux-ci exploitent souvent pour opposer les deux philosophes. Autrement dit, les diff\u00e9rentes positions prises tour \u00e0 tour par l\u2019un ou l\u2019autre des N\u00e9oplatoniciens, ou mieux par l\u2019un ou l\u2019autre des courants scolastiques n\u00e9oplatoniciens, tiennent \u00e0 des nuances argumentatives. Elles cherchent davantage \u00e0 d\u00e9montrer la concordance entre Platon et Aristote qu\u2019\u00e0 viser l\u2019objectif principal commandant n\u2019importe quelle ex\u00e9g\u00e8se n\u00e9oplatonicienne du texte d\u2019Aristote : la faire, d\u2019une fa\u00e7on institutionnelle, servir le plus possible \u00e0 la lecture et \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des textes platoniciens.\r\nSi nous voulons comprendre l\u2019esprit de certaines positions, aussi bien th\u00e9oriques qu\u2019historiques, adopt\u00e9es par les N\u00e9oplatoniciens, il nous faut donc partir d\u2019une distinction pr\u00e9liminaire entre, d\u2019une part, l\u2019attitude pol\u00e9mique de ceux qui tendent \u00e0 souligner les divergences plus ou moins substantielles entre Platon et Aristote \u2013 donc s\u2019efforcent de r\u00e9futer explicitement et sans \u00e9quivoque les objections d\u2019Aristote et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens contre Platon \u2013 et, d\u2019autre part, l\u2019attitude critique (mais peu ou gu\u00e8re critique en apparence) de ceux qui cherchent surtout \u00e0 minimiser la \u00ab puissance destructrice \u00bb des objections aristot\u00e9liciennes et p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiennes, au point de ramener la position r\u00e9elle d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 celle de Platon.\r\nEn d\u2019autres termes, il s\u2019agit ou bien de d\u00e9fendre Platon contre les contradictions ou absurdit\u00e9s pr\u00e9sum\u00e9es dont on veut le rendre coupable, ou bien d\u2019interpr\u00e9ter d\u2019une fa\u00e7on compatible avec la \u00ab v\u00e9rit\u00e9 \u00bb platonicienne ses apparentes discordances avec ce qu\u2019on suppose \u00eatre la \u00ab v\u00e9rit\u00e9 \u00bb aristot\u00e9licienne. Mais en aucun cas Aristote ne doit et ne peut l\u2019emporter sur Platon, soit parce que sa critique de Platon n\u2019atteint pas sa cible ou pousse \u00e0 mal le comprendre, soit parce que le sens que l\u2019on accorde \u00e0 cette critique n\u2019est pas celui qu\u2019elle poss\u00e8de effectivement ou n\u2019est pas le seul qu\u2019elle puisse poss\u00e9der.\r\nL\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te n\u00e9oplatonicien, donc, peut obtenir le m\u00eame r\u00e9sultat en suivant deux voies diff\u00e9rentes : l\u2019important est de montrer que l\u2019opposition pr\u00e9sum\u00e9e d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 Platon peut \u00eatre d\u00e9pass\u00e9e et que l\u2019\u00e9tude du texte d\u2019Aristote peut servir \u00e0 faciliter la compr\u00e9hension du texte de Platon (pour atteindre ce but, on doit parfois sacrifier les anciens Acad\u00e9miciens, tenus pour \u00eatre la cible des objections d\u2019Aristote : en ce cas, ce sont les anciens disciples de Platon qui auront mal compris le ma\u00eetre commun). Tout cela signifie que n\u2019importe quelle ex\u00e9g\u00e8se du texte aristot\u00e9licien (de n\u2019importe quel texte aristot\u00e9licien) fait partie de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se plus g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du texte platonicien.\r\nC\u2019\u00e9tait l\u00e0 une des r\u00e8gles de l\u2019enseignement n\u00e9oplatonicien, donc un \u00e9l\u00e9ment doctrinal commun \u00e0 tous les N\u00e9oplatoniciens. On pourrait faire, peut-\u00eatre, une exception pour Damascius, qui, on le sait, contestait souvent la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se pr\u00e9dominante (\u00e0 cette \u00e9poque, celle de Proclus) des textes platoniciens et aristot\u00e9liciens. Mais il est temps d\u2019entrer dans le vif du sujet.\r\nNous allons examiner six textes tir\u00e9s respectivement l\u2019un de Simplicius, quatre de Proclus, et un autre d\u2019Ammonius ; apr\u00e8s en avoir donn\u00e9 la traduction (la mienne, en l\u2019absence d\u2019indication contraire), j\u2019en viendrai aux cons\u00e9quences de mon interpr\u00e9tation. [introduction p. 175-177]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LVbezb3omxhQNRC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":305,"full_name":"Romano, Francesco","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":306,"full_name":"Dixsaut, Monique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1057,"section_of":310,"pages":"175-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":310,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Contre Platon. Tome I: Le Platonisme D\u00e9voil\u00e9","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Dixsaut1993","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"Pourquoi, comment, devient-on antiplatonicien ? A l'\u00e9vidence, en s'opposant au platonisme, d'embl\u00e9e le probl\u00e8me se complique, car il n'est pas certain apr\u00e8s tout que Platon, si obstin\u00e9ment absent de ses propres dialogues, si d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9ment anonyme, ait \u00e9t\u00e9 platonicien. Comment s'opposer \u00e0 qui ne parle jamais en son nom, pourquoi r\u00e9futer une doctrine que son auteur n'a jamais pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e comme telle ni revendiqu\u00e9e comme sienne et dont le sens semble pouvoir \u00eatre librement \u00e9labor\u00e9 par les adversaires du moment et pour les besoins de leur cause ? En quoi le platonisme autorise-t-il ces attaques globales et parfois \u00e9trangement violentes ? Peut-\u00eatre est-ce parce que chaque \u00e9poque croit y d\u00e9celer ce qu'elle tient pour la forme extr\u00eame de la d\u00e9mesure et de l'orgueil philosophiques, indiquant du m\u00eame coup les probl\u00e8mes et les attitudes jug\u00e9s par elle tol\u00e9rables en philosophie. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9zfyHBZbSdr0Iyv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":310,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Tradition de la pens\u00e9e classique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1993]}

Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle’s De Anima, 1993
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.)
Title Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle’s De Anima
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1993
Published in Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism
Pages 91-112
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Translator(s)
Neoplatonic exposition of classical Greek philosophy includes two kinds of reinterpretation. The first and most basic is, of course, the reading of Plato himself as a Neoplatonist. This is, it goes without saying, to be found primarily in all the independent works of Neopla­ tonism, as well as in commentaries on works of Plato. The other, with which readers of the Aristotelian commentators are more often concerned, is the Platonization of Aristotle. The latter is crucial to our understanding of any Neoplatonist commentator, both in himself and also as an authority on Aristotle. And since we are dealing with a text at least superficially based on Aristotle, I shall devote most of this paper to some of the somewhat strange interpretations of him to be found in Book 1 of the De anima commentary. At the same time this particular book also offers an opportunity, which the commentary on what will have seemed to him the more obviously philosophically in­ teresting parts of the De anima does not1, to see how Simplicius works in the area of Plato interpretation, and we shall look at the way in which Plato and Aristotle are both subjected to similar tech­ niques of interpretation. [p. 91]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"795","_score":null,"_source":{"id":795,"authors_free":[{"id":1173,"entry_id":795,"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":2441,"entry_id":795,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"},"abstract":"Neoplatonic exposition of classical Greek philosophy includes \r\ntwo kinds of reinterpretation. The first and most basic is, of course, \r\nthe reading of Plato himself as a Neoplatonist. This is, it goes without \r\nsaying, to be found primarily in all the independent works of Neopla\u00ad\r\ntonism, as well as in commentaries on works of Plato. The other, \r\nwith which readers of the Aristotelian commentators are more often \r\nconcerned, is the Platonization of Aristotle. The latter is crucial to \r\nour understanding of any Neoplatonist commentator, both in himself \r\nand also as an authority on Aristotle. And since we are dealing with a \r\ntext at least superficially based on Aristotle, I shall devote most of this \r\npaper to some of the somewhat strange interpretations of him to be \r\nfound in Book 1 of the De anima commentary. At the same time this \r\nparticular book also offers an opportunity, which the commentary on \r\nwhat will have seemed to him the more obviously philosophically in\u00ad\r\nteresting parts of the De anima does not1, to see how Simplicius \r\nworks in the area of Plato interpretation, and we shall look at the \r\nway in which Plato and Aristotle are both subjected to similar tech\u00ad\r\nniques of interpretation. [p. 91]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b0MGk7ACSQL6CCE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":795,"section_of":214,"pages":"91-112","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hj2vOznXoMqSzco","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1993]}

Soul Vehicles in Simplicius, 1993
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.)
Title Soul Vehicles in Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1993
Published in Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism
Pages 173-188
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Translator(s)
There has been a not inconsiderable amount of discussion of the nature and function of the ochêma—or ochêmata—the body or bodies made of not quite bodily substance, which served as an intermediary between body and soul in various Neoplatonisms from Porphyry, or even arguably Plotinus, down to and including Proclus. Rather less attention, and in Simplicius’ case virtually none, has been paid to the nature and role of such intermediary vehicles in the Neoplatonist commentators on Aristotle. The purpose of the following pages will be to examine the use of the concept in Simplicius. In particular, it will seek to establish: How many such vehicles there were. What they were made of. What was their function, and, related to this: What was their life expectancy. Were they simply such as one would expect to find in the work of a Neoplatonist at this time, or are they in some way modified by the commentary context? In considering these matters, special attention will be paid to the vocabulary used to discuss them. It should not, however, come as a surprise to discover that it is not significantly, if at all, different from that of those Neoplatonists who did not concentrate their endeavors on the exposition of Aristotle. [introduction p. 173]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"896","_score":null,"_source":{"id":896,"authors_free":[{"id":1322,"entry_id":896,"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":2442,"entry_id":896,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"Soul Vehicles in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Soul Vehicles in Simplicius"},"abstract":"There has been a not inconsiderable amount of discussion of the nature and function of the och\u00eama\u2014or och\u00eamata\u2014the body or bodies made of not quite bodily substance, which served as an intermediary between body and soul in various Neoplatonisms from Porphyry, or even arguably Plotinus, down to and including Proclus. Rather less attention, and in Simplicius\u2019 case virtually none, has been paid to the nature and role of such intermediary vehicles in the Neoplatonist commentators on Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of the following pages will be to examine the use of the concept in Simplicius. In particular, it will seek to establish:\r\n\r\n How many such vehicles there were.\r\n What they were made of.\r\n What was their function, and, related to this:\r\n What was their life expectancy.\r\n Were they simply such as one would expect to find in the work of a Neoplatonist at this time, or are they in some way modified by the commentary context?\r\n\r\nIn considering these matters, special attention will be paid to the vocabulary used to discuss them. It should not, however, come as a surprise to discover that it is not significantly, if at all, different from that of those Neoplatonists who did not concentrate their endeavors on the exposition of Aristotle. [introduction p. 173]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iFGbdffl8v5SpA9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":896,"section_of":214,"pages":"173-188","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hj2vOznXoMqSzco","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1993]}

Metacommentary, 1992
By: Barnes, Jonathan, Annas, Julia (Ed.)
Title Metacommentary
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1992
Published in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Pages 267-281
Categories no categories
Author(s) Barnes, Jonathan
Editor(s) Annas, Julia
Translator(s)
Simplicius is in the scholarly news; the Neoplatonists are making a comeback; and the Greek commentaries on Aristotle are submitting to renewed scholarly scrutiny and enjoying some little publicity. Students of Greek philosophy have always referred to Simplicius and his fellows; but they have usually read a page here and a paragraph there, and their primary interest in the works has been in their value as sources for earlier thought (for the Presocratics, for the Stoics). This approach to a text has its dangers; and it is an unqualified good that Simplicius’ works are now being studied hard for themselves and as wholes. The French metacommentary may be regarded, and should be welcomed, as a part of this enterprise. But I am, I suspect, not alone in hoping that the next nine fascicles may prove a touch more sprightly and a touch more lithe. [conclusion p. 280-281]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"646","_score":null,"_source":{"id":646,"authors_free":[{"id":924,"entry_id":646,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":925,"entry_id":646,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":415,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Annas, Julia","free_first_name":"Julia","free_last_name":"Annas","norm_person":{"id":415,"first_name":"Julia","last_name":"Annas","full_name":"Annas, Julia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/112065120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Metacommentary","main_title":{"title":"Metacommentary"},"abstract":"Simplicius is in the scholarly news; the Neoplatonists are making a comeback; and the Greek commentaries on Aristotle are submitting to renewed scholarly scrutiny and enjoying some little publicity. Students of Greek philosophy have always referred to Simplicius and his fellows; but they have usually read a page here and a paragraph there, and their primary interest in the works has been in their value as sources for earlier thought (for the Presocratics, for the Stoics). This approach to a text has its dangers; and it is an unqualified good that Simplicius\u2019 works are now being studied hard for themselves and as wholes. The French metacommentary may be regarded, and should be welcomed, as a part of this enterprise. But I am, I suspect, not alone in hoping that the next nine fascicles may prove a touch more sprightly and a touch more lithe. [conclusion p. 280-281]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FBuj9EwgXQZ5fXT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":415,"full_name":"Annas, Julia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":646,"section_of":285,"pages":"267-281","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":285,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Annas1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy is an annual publication which includes original articles on a wide range of topics in ancient philosophy, and review articles of major books. In this supplementary volume, a number of renowned scholars of Plato reflect upon their interpretative methods. Topics covered include the use of ancient authorities in interpreting Plato's dialogues, Plato's literary and rhetorical style, his arguments and characters, and his use of the dialogue form. The collection is not intended as a comprehensive survey of methodological approaches; rather it offers a number of different perspectives and clearly articulated interpretations by leading scholars in the field. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dS81MCQI85uHYdS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":285,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"X","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}

Simplicius, 1992
By: Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Françoise , Jacob, André (Ed.), Mattéi, Jean-François (Ed.)
Title Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1992
Published in Encyclopédie philosophique universelle: Les oeuvres philosophiques
Pages 319-321
Categories no categories
Author(s) Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Françoise
Editor(s) Jacob, André , Mattéi, Jean-François
Translator(s)
Ce néoplatonicien est le dernier grand philosophe païen de l’Antiquité tardive. Ses grands commentaires sur Aristote et sur le Manuel d'Épictète ont été largement exploités comme une mine de renseignements sur l’histoire de la philosophie antique, par exemple sur les œuvres des présocratiques, des péripatéticiens et des stoïciens. Toutefois, à l’exception du commentaire sur le Manuel d'Épictète, ces œuvres n’ont pas, jusqu’ici, été étudiées dans leur ensemble d’une manière permettant de connaître le système philosophique de Simplicius lui-même dans ses détails. Des recherches récentes ont montré que, contrairement à ce que pensait encore K. Praechter, Simplicius est, dans l’ensemble de son œuvre, largement tributaire des doctrines philosophiques de son maître Damascius. Ce dernier, en critiquant Proclus, avait développé le plus riche des systèmes néoplatoniciens, marqué par une différenciation ontologique poussée à l’extrême. Simplicius ne nous a laissé aucune indication concernant sa patrie, le lieu ou la date de sa naissance. Il nous informe seulement qu’il a suivi à Alexandrie l’enseignement d’Ammonius, fils d’Hermias et disciple de Proclus, et, à un lieu ou des lieux non spécifiés, l’enseignement de Damascius. Grâce à un ensemble d’autres sources, grecques et arabes, ainsi qu’à quelques indices contenus dans ses propres œuvres, nous pouvons compléter sa biographie comme suit : Simplicius est né en Cilicie, en Asie Mineure. Il a été élève d’Ammonius à Alexandrie avant 517 de notre ère et s’est retrouvé en Perse en 532 avec les philosophes Damascius (son maître), Eulamios, Priscien, Hermias, Diogène et Isidore de Gaza, à une date difficile à déterminer. On peut supposer un lien entre le séjour des philosophes grecs en Perse et l’interdiction, édictée par Justinien en 529, d’enseigner la philosophie et le droit à Athènes, bien qu’aucune source ne le précise. Simplicius quitta la Perse en 532, en compagnie des autres philosophes, pour s’installer à Harrân (Carrhae) et y enseigner dans l’école néoplatonicienne de cette ville, située en territoire byzantin. C’est là qu’il composa tous ses commentaires. Notons enfin que l’authenticité du Commentaire sur le traité De l'âme d’Aristote a été mise en doute par F. Bossier et C. Steel (cf. compte rendu de P. Hadot). Le Commentaire sur le traité de Jamblique « Sur la secte de Pythagore » est perdu, et il ne reste que quelques fragments des commentaires sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote et sur le premier livre des Éléments d’Euclide. Œuvres principales de Simplicius : Commentaire sur le traité Du ciel d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Aristotelous Peri ouranou), vers 533. Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote (Eis to proton tes Aristotelous Phusikes akroaseos), vers 538. Commentaire aux Catégories d'Aristote (Hupomnema eis tas Kategorias tou Aristotelous), vers 538. Commentaire sur le traité De l'âme d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Peri psuches Aristotelous hupomnema), vers 538. Étant impossible de donner, en quelques lignes, un résumé pertinent pour chacun de ces volumineux commentaires, il est instructif de fournir quelques explications générales sur leur fonction, leur structure et leur tendance philosophique. Ces commentaires combinent des applications concrètes de la sképsis aux thèses de la logique, de la physique et de l’éthique. [the entire article]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"694","_score":null,"_source":{"id":694,"authors_free":[{"id":1032,"entry_id":694,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":141,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Franc\u0327oise ","free_first_name":"Franc\u0327oise ","free_last_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky","norm_person":{"id":141,"first_name":"Francoise ","last_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky","full_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Francoise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1033,"entry_id":694,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":140,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jacob, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Jacob","norm_person":{"id":140,"first_name":"Jacob","last_name":"Andr\u00e9 ","full_name":"Jacob, Andr\u00e9 ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1024554724","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1978,"entry_id":694,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":142,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Matt\u00e9i, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Jean-Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Matt\u00e9i","norm_person":{"id":142,"first_name":"Jean-Fran\u00e7ois ","last_name":"Matt\u00e9i","full_name":"Matt\u00e9i, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13666606X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Ce n\u00e9oplatonicien est le dernier grand philosophe pa\u00efen de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive. Ses grands commentaires sur Aristote et sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te ont \u00e9t\u00e9 largement exploit\u00e9s comme une mine de renseignements sur l\u2019histoire de la philosophie antique, par exemple sur les \u0153uvres des pr\u00e9socratiques, des p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens et des sto\u00efciens. Toutefois, \u00e0 l\u2019exception du commentaire sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, ces \u0153uvres n\u2019ont pas, jusqu\u2019ici, \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9tudi\u00e9es dans leur ensemble d\u2019une mani\u00e8re permettant de conna\u00eetre le syst\u00e8me philosophique de Simplicius lui-m\u00eame dans ses d\u00e9tails.\r\n\r\nDes recherches r\u00e9centes ont montr\u00e9 que, contrairement \u00e0 ce que pensait encore K. Praechter, Simplicius est, dans l\u2019ensemble de son \u0153uvre, largement tributaire des doctrines philosophiques de son ma\u00eetre Damascius. Ce dernier, en critiquant Proclus, avait d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 le plus riche des syst\u00e8mes n\u00e9oplatoniciens, marqu\u00e9 par une diff\u00e9renciation ontologique pouss\u00e9e \u00e0 l\u2019extr\u00eame.\r\n\r\nSimplicius ne nous a laiss\u00e9 aucune indication concernant sa patrie, le lieu ou la date de sa naissance. Il nous informe seulement qu\u2019il a suivi \u00e0 Alexandrie l\u2019enseignement d\u2019Ammonius, fils d\u2019Hermias et disciple de Proclus, et, \u00e0 un lieu ou des lieux non sp\u00e9cifi\u00e9s, l\u2019enseignement de Damascius. Gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 un ensemble d\u2019autres sources, grecques et arabes, ainsi qu\u2019\u00e0 quelques indices contenus dans ses propres \u0153uvres, nous pouvons compl\u00e9ter sa biographie comme suit : Simplicius est n\u00e9 en Cilicie, en Asie Mineure. Il a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9l\u00e8ve d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie avant 517 de notre \u00e8re et s\u2019est retrouv\u00e9 en Perse en 532 avec les philosophes Damascius (son ma\u00eetre), Eulamios, Priscien, Hermias, Diog\u00e8ne et Isidore de Gaza, \u00e0 une date difficile \u00e0 d\u00e9terminer.\r\n\r\nOn peut supposer un lien entre le s\u00e9jour des philosophes grecs en Perse et l\u2019interdiction, \u00e9dict\u00e9e par Justinien en 529, d\u2019enseigner la philosophie et le droit \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes, bien qu\u2019aucune source ne le pr\u00e9cise. Simplicius quitta la Perse en 532, en compagnie des autres philosophes, pour s\u2019installer \u00e0 Harr\u00e2n (Carrhae) et y enseigner dans l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne de cette ville, situ\u00e9e en territoire byzantin. C\u2019est l\u00e0 qu\u2019il composa tous ses commentaires.\r\n\r\nNotons enfin que l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 du Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 De l'\u00e2me d\u2019Aristote a \u00e9t\u00e9 mise en doute par F. Bossier et C. Steel (cf. compte rendu de P. Hadot). Le Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 de Jamblique \u00ab Sur la secte de Pythagore \u00bb est perdu, et il ne reste que quelques fragments des commentaires sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote et sur le premier livre des \u00c9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Euclide.\r\n\r\n\u0152uvres principales de Simplicius :\r\n\r\n Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 Du ciel d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Aristotelous Peri ouranou), vers 533.\r\n Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote (Eis to proton tes Aristotelous Phusikes akroaseos), vers 538.\r\n Commentaire aux Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (Hupomnema eis tas Kategorias tou Aristotelous), vers 538.\r\n Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 De l'\u00e2me d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Peri psuches Aristotelous hupomnema), vers 538.\r\n\r\n\u00c9tant impossible de donner, en quelques lignes, un r\u00e9sum\u00e9 pertinent pour chacun de ces volumineux commentaires, il est instructif de fournir quelques explications g\u00e9n\u00e9rales sur leur fonction, leur structure et leur tendance philosophique. Ces commentaires combinent des applications concr\u00e8tes de la sk\u00e9psis aux th\u00e8ses de la logique, de la physique et de l\u2019\u00e9thique. [the entire article]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QFpZ6wLm1XbKKRr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":141,"full_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Francoise ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":140,"full_name":"Jacob, Andr\u00e9 ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":142,"full_name":"Matt\u00e9i, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":694,"section_of":361,"pages":"319-321","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":361,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Encyclop\u00e9die philosophique universelle: Les oeuvres philosophiques","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Mattei1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OwmYyz8HeXbVYFD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":361,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses Universitaires de France","series":"","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}

'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer, 1992
By: Algra, Keimpe A., Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Gutas, Dimitri (Ed.)
Title 'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1992
Published in Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings
Pages 141-165
Categories no categories
Author(s) Algra, Keimpe A.
Editor(s) Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri
Translator(s)
Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer—two passages in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics—constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus’ ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5–11 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle’s famous final definition of place as the "inner boundary of the surrounding body." As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13–22 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle’s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus’ conception of place in his Corollarium de loco. The existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus’ conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the "traditional" view—a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky—fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a "relational" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle’s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz’s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius’ theory of "essential place" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22. Such an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper "Theophrastus on Place" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus’ fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji’s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle’s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place. The aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus’ ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle’s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus’ commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus’ position. The structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle’s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus’ aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle’s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe—pace Sorabji—that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle’s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle’s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus’ commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus’ Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus’ position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V). The resulting interpretation of Theophrastus’ position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the "traditional" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji’s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle’s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1005","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1005,"authors_free":[{"id":1511,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1512,"entry_id":1005,"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":1513,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer","main_title":{"title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer"},"abstract":"Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer\u2014two passages in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics\u2014constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5\u201311 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle\u2019s famous final definition of place as the \"inner boundary of the surrounding body.\" As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13\u201322 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place in his Corollarium de loco.\r\n\r\nThe existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the \"traditional\" view\u2014a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky\u2014fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a \"relational\" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle\u2019s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz\u2019s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius\u2019 theory of \"essential place\" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22.\r\n\r\nSuch an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper \"Theophrastus on Place\" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus\u2019 fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji\u2019s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle\u2019s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place.\r\n\r\nThe aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus\u2019 position.\r\n\r\nThe structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus\u2019 aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle\u2019s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe\u2014pace Sorabji\u2014that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle\u2019s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle\u2019s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus\u2019 Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus\u2019 position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V).\r\n\r\nThe resulting interpretation of Theophrastus\u2019 position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the \"traditional\" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji\u2019s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle\u2019s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0oHBoWr21Bfhamu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1005,"section_of":294,"pages":"141-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}

Physikai doxai and Problēmata physika from Aristotle to Aëtius (and Beyond), 1992
By: Mansfeld, Jaap, Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Gutas, Dimitri (Ed.)
Title Physikai doxai and Problēmata physika from Aristotle to Aëtius (and Beyond)
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1992
Published in Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings
Pages 63-111
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mansfeld, Jaap
Editor(s) Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri
Translator(s)
In Theophrastus’ bibliography at Diog. Laërt. V 48 the title is given in the genitive, Φυσικών δοξών, which means that the intended nominative may have been either Φυσικών δόξαι (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or Φυσικαί δόξαι (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided over this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are a number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a minor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in determining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, I shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be Φυσικάι δόξαι. [p. 64]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1011","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1011,"authors_free":[{"id":1525,"entry_id":1011,"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":1526,"entry_id":1011,"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":1527,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)","main_title":{"title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)"},"abstract":"In Theophrastus\u2019 bibliography at Diog. La\u00ebrt. V 48 the title is given in the \r\ngenitive, \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ce\u03bd, which means that the intended nominative may have \r\nbeen either \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or \r\n\u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided \r\nover this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are \r\na number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a \r\nminor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in \r\ndetermining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, \r\nI shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b9\r\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9. [p. 64]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/va3DLcPD91tJsO7","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":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1011,"section_of":294,"pages":"63-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}

Le problème des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius, 1992
By: Bossier, Fernand, Hamesse, Jacqueline (Ed.)
Title Le problème des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1992
Published in Les problèmes posés par l'édition critique des textes anciens et médiévaux
Pages 361-397
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bossier, Fernand
Editor(s) Hamesse, Jacqueline
Translator(s)
Un des problèmes qui peuvent encombrer l’édition critique des commentaires anciens et médiévaux sur les grands traités qui ont fait autorité dans les écoles (traités d’Aristote, de Galien, de Ptolémée, etc.) concerne la manière dont les lemmes ou références au texte commenté doivent être présentés ; car bien qu’en règle générale on aperçoive assez vite si l’auteur a effectivement inséré des références pareilles, les informations concernant leur forme et leur texte sont plus d’une fois peu concordantes, voire très confuses. La forme des lemmes peut varier pour la raison qu’en tête d’un commentaire on peut citer in extenso toute la section commentée ou recourir à un système de lemmes abrégés, dont les principaux types seront énumérés ci-après. Mais ce qu’il importe de remarquer avant tout, c’est qu’en raison même de leur fonction de référence, les lemmes doivent être bien distingués des commentaires eux-mêmes ; le commentateur, s’il est attentif, prendra soin de les souligner ou de les écrire en caractères un peu plus gros, ou il chargera son secrétaire ou son éditeur de les écrire en rouge. Placés en tête des commentaires pour en faciliter l’étude et bien distingués de ceux-ci, les lemmes, par contrecoup, sont très exposés aux tentatives de remaniement et d’adaptation de la part des utilisateurs ultérieurs. Il peut paraître utile à un savant ou à un éditeur d’avoir ou de mettre sous les yeux le passage commenté tout entier, en remplaçant ou complétant les lemmes abrégés écrits par l’auteur, ou d’assurer au moins un usage plus facile et mieux organisé du commentaire, en ajoutant après les premiers mots du passage commenté, écrits par l’auteur, la formule jusqu’à, suivie des derniers mots de celui-ci. Inversement, les lemmes complets peuvent être abrégés par un copiste, par exemple si le savant qui a passé la commande possède déjà le traité commenté. Ainsi donc, la forme des lemmes varie très souvent d’un manuscrit à l’autre, voire d’une partie à l’autre à l’intérieur d’un même manuscrit, et l’éditeur d’un commentaire devra se mettre à la recherche de la forme que l’auteur lui-même leur a donnée. Cette préoccupation de retrouver la forme primitive ne mérite pas d’être considérée comme une sorte de surenchère critique. Il se peut, en effet, que la question de la forme des lemmes soit intimement liée à une autre, bien plus importante, à savoir celle de la valeur des lemmes comme témoins indirects du texte commenté. Si l’étude critique révèle que les lemmes sous telle ou telle forme ont été refaits, on ne sera plus tenté de penser que leur texte reflète l’état du texte commenté à l’époque du commentateur, du moins pas dans les parties remaniées ou ajoutées ; seules les parties primitives seront jugées à même de nous informer sur le texte lu et cité par le commentateur, bien que là encore la facilité d’une adaptation ultérieure doive nous inciter à la prudence. De toute évidence, l’étude des lemmes ne présente pas partout une pareille importance pour la critique textuelle du traité commenté, mais seulement dans les cas où le commentateur est reconnu à juste titre comme un témoin très précieux (par exemple les commentateurs Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Ammonius, Jean Philopon, Simplicius pour le texte d’Aristote) ou tout à fait privilégié du texte commenté. Mais même en dehors de cette perspective, l’étude des lemmes se révèle plus d’une fois très fructueuse : la recherche de la forme primitive peut nous instruire non pas seulement sur la méthode utilisée par le commentateur, mais encore sur la manière dont les commentaires ont été préparés et organisés pour en faciliter la lecture et la consultation, et de cette sorte, elle nous mène de temps à autre à des découvertes tout à fait inattendues. Le but du présent article est de montrer comment une analyse minutieuse des lemmes latins du De caelo, contenus dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De caelo de Simplicius, nous a mis sur la voie de trois recensions du De caelo, dont deux étaient complètement inconnues auparavant. [introduction p. 361-362]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1076","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1076,"authors_free":[{"id":1630,"entry_id":1076,"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":1631,"entry_id":1076,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":13,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hamesse, Jacqueline ","free_first_name":"Jacqueline ","free_last_name":"Hamesse","norm_person":{"id":13,"first_name":"Jacqueline ","last_name":"Hamesse","full_name":"Hamesse, Jacqueline ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132262746","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le probl\u00e8me des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Le probl\u00e8me des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius"},"abstract":"Un des probl\u00e8mes qui peuvent encombrer l\u2019\u00e9dition critique des commentaires anciens et m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux sur les grands trait\u00e9s qui ont fait autorit\u00e9 dans les \u00e9coles (trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote, de Galien, de Ptol\u00e9m\u00e9e, etc.) concerne la mani\u00e8re dont les lemmes ou r\u00e9f\u00e9rences au texte comment\u00e9 doivent \u00eatre pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s ; car bien qu\u2019en r\u00e8gle g\u00e9n\u00e9rale on aper\u00e7oive assez vite si l\u2019auteur a effectivement ins\u00e9r\u00e9 des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences pareilles, les informations concernant leur forme et leur texte sont plus d\u2019une fois peu concordantes, voire tr\u00e8s confuses.\r\n\r\nLa forme des lemmes peut varier pour la raison qu\u2019en t\u00eate d\u2019un commentaire on peut citer in extenso toute la section comment\u00e9e ou recourir \u00e0 un syst\u00e8me de lemmes abr\u00e9g\u00e9s, dont les principaux types seront \u00e9num\u00e9r\u00e9s ci-apr\u00e8s. Mais ce qu\u2019il importe de remarquer avant tout, c\u2019est qu\u2019en raison m\u00eame de leur fonction de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence, les lemmes doivent \u00eatre bien distingu\u00e9s des commentaires eux-m\u00eames ; le commentateur, s\u2019il est attentif, prendra soin de les souligner ou de les \u00e9crire en caract\u00e8res un peu plus gros, ou il chargera son secr\u00e9taire ou son \u00e9diteur de les \u00e9crire en rouge.\r\n\r\nPlac\u00e9s en t\u00eate des commentaires pour en faciliter l\u2019\u00e9tude et bien distingu\u00e9s de ceux-ci, les lemmes, par contrecoup, sont tr\u00e8s expos\u00e9s aux tentatives de remaniement et d\u2019adaptation de la part des utilisateurs ult\u00e9rieurs. Il peut para\u00eetre utile \u00e0 un savant ou \u00e0 un \u00e9diteur d\u2019avoir ou de mettre sous les yeux le passage comment\u00e9 tout entier, en rempla\u00e7ant ou compl\u00e9tant les lemmes abr\u00e9g\u00e9s \u00e9crits par l\u2019auteur, ou d\u2019assurer au moins un usage plus facile et mieux organis\u00e9 du commentaire, en ajoutant apr\u00e8s les premiers mots du passage comment\u00e9, \u00e9crits par l\u2019auteur, la formule jusqu\u2019\u00e0, suivie des derniers mots de celui-ci. Inversement, les lemmes complets peuvent \u00eatre abr\u00e9g\u00e9s par un copiste, par exemple si le savant qui a pass\u00e9 la commande poss\u00e8de d\u00e9j\u00e0 le trait\u00e9 comment\u00e9.\r\n\r\nAinsi donc, la forme des lemmes varie tr\u00e8s souvent d\u2019un manuscrit \u00e0 l\u2019autre, voire d\u2019une partie \u00e0 l\u2019autre \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur d\u2019un m\u00eame manuscrit, et l\u2019\u00e9diteur d\u2019un commentaire devra se mettre \u00e0 la recherche de la forme que l\u2019auteur lui-m\u00eame leur a donn\u00e9e. Cette pr\u00e9occupation de retrouver la forme primitive ne m\u00e9rite pas d\u2019\u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme une sorte de surench\u00e8re critique. Il se peut, en effet, que la question de la forme des lemmes soit intimement li\u00e9e \u00e0 une autre, bien plus importante, \u00e0 savoir celle de la valeur des lemmes comme t\u00e9moins indirects du texte comment\u00e9. Si l\u2019\u00e9tude critique r\u00e9v\u00e8le que les lemmes sous telle ou telle forme ont \u00e9t\u00e9 refaits, on ne sera plus tent\u00e9 de penser que leur texte refl\u00e8te l\u2019\u00e9tat du texte comment\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque du commentateur, du moins pas dans les parties remani\u00e9es ou ajout\u00e9es ; seules les parties primitives seront jug\u00e9es \u00e0 m\u00eame de nous informer sur le texte lu et cit\u00e9 par le commentateur, bien que l\u00e0 encore la facilit\u00e9 d\u2019une adaptation ult\u00e9rieure doive nous inciter \u00e0 la prudence.\r\n\r\nDe toute \u00e9vidence, l\u2019\u00e9tude des lemmes ne pr\u00e9sente pas partout une pareille importance pour la critique textuelle du trait\u00e9 comment\u00e9, mais seulement dans les cas o\u00f9 le commentateur est reconnu \u00e0 juste titre comme un t\u00e9moin tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9cieux (par exemple les commentateurs Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Ammonius, Jean Philopon, Simplicius pour le texte d\u2019Aristote) ou tout \u00e0 fait privil\u00e9gi\u00e9 du texte comment\u00e9. Mais m\u00eame en dehors de cette perspective, l\u2019\u00e9tude des lemmes se r\u00e9v\u00e8le plus d\u2019une fois tr\u00e8s fructueuse : la recherche de la forme primitive peut nous instruire non pas seulement sur la m\u00e9thode utilis\u00e9e par le commentateur, mais encore sur la mani\u00e8re dont les commentaires ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9par\u00e9s et organis\u00e9s pour en faciliter la lecture et la consultation, et de cette sorte, elle nous m\u00e8ne de temps \u00e0 autre \u00e0 des d\u00e9couvertes tout \u00e0 fait inattendues.\r\n\r\nLe but du pr\u00e9sent article est de montrer comment une analyse minutieuse des lemmes latins du De caelo, contenus dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De caelo de Simplicius, nous a mis sur la voie de trois recensions du De caelo, dont deux \u00e9taient compl\u00e8tement inconnues auparavant. [introduction p. 361-362]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Db9PyA6a27u1SM5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":13,"full_name":"Hamesse, Jacqueline ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1076,"section_of":278,"pages":"361-397","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":278,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Les probl\u00e8mes pos\u00e9s par l'\u00e9dition critique des textes anciens et m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hamesse1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"La meilleure mani\u00e8re d'introduire aux probl\u00e8mes pos\u00e9s par l'\u00e9dition critique des textes anciens et m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux est de pr\u00e9senter une s\u00e9rie de cas concrets illustrant les difficult\u00e9s inh\u00e9rentes \u00e0 ce type de travail et la complexit\u00e9 des \u00e9l\u00e9ments \u00e0 prendre en consid\u00e9ration. Les aspects \u00e0 traiter sont multiples. L'accent a \u00e9t\u00e9 mis sur la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de tenir compte du contexte historique qui a conditionn\u00e9 la transmission de l'oeuvre et des facteurs mat\u00e9riels qui sont intervenus dans la tradition. Appel a \u00e9t\u00e9 fait \u00e0 diff\u00e9rents sp\u00e9cialistes ayant rencontr\u00e9 des probl\u00e8mes sp\u00e9cifiques dans leurs travaux. Le volume contient des articles qui pr\u00e9sentent l'exp\u00e9rience de chercheurs qualifi\u00e9s dans des domaines pr\u00e9cis et qui mettent l'accent sur le point de vue m\u00e9thodologique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1sNOomXw6buIlXz","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":278,"pubplace":"Louvain-la-Neuve","publisher":"Institute d'Etudes M\u00e9di\u00e9vales","series":"Textes, \u00c9tudes, Congr\u00e8s","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}

The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories, 1991
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Robinson, Howard (Ed.)
Title The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1991
Published in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition
Pages 175-189
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard
Translator(s)
This brief comparison between Plato and Aristotle reveals once again the attitude of our Alexandrian commentators—Philoponus, Olympiodorus, and Elias in the case I have just discussed—towards the philosophers: for them, the two philosophers are mutually complementary, but the genius of the divine Plato is superior to Aristotle. Aristotle only knows how to establish logical rules, which he discovers by analyzing the logical elements in Plato’s work, whereas Plato practiced logical proof spontaneously and intuitively without formulating the rules for it. Here again, we meet the principle of Aristotle’s inferiority to Plato, which determines the harmonizing trend as well as its limitations. Thanks to Marinus’ Life of Proclus and Damascius’ Life of Isidore, we know the role of the study of the works of Aristotle with commentary in the teaching of the School of Athens at the time when Syrianus, then Proclus, then Isidore ran the School. Syrianus initiated Proclus into Plato’s mystical doctrine after Proclus had been adequately prepared by studying the works of Aristotle, as if, so to speak, by way of preparatory or ‘minor’ mysteries. So, in directing Proclus’ studies, Syrianus proceeds in due order, as Marinus emphasizes, and ‘does not leap over the threshold’; in other words, Proclus proceeds in the set order and does not miss out any step in the teaching. Isidore, too, came to Plato’s philosophy after studying Aristotle. I hope to have shown in this paper that the part played by the study of and commentary on Aristotle’s works remained the same up to the end of Neoplatonism. Aristotle was never studied for his own sake by the Neoplatonists, but always as a necessary preparation for the philosophy of Plato. [conclusion p. 188-189]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"640","_score":null,"_source":{"id":640,"authors_free":[{"id":909,"entry_id":640,"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":910,"entry_id":640,"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":911,"entry_id":640,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories","main_title":{"title":"The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories"},"abstract":"This brief comparison between Plato and Aristotle reveals once again the attitude of our Alexandrian commentators\u2014Philoponus, Olympiodorus, and Elias in the case I have just discussed\u2014towards the philosophers: for them, the two philosophers are mutually complementary, but the genius of the divine Plato is superior to Aristotle.\r\n\r\nAristotle only knows how to establish logical rules, which he discovers by analyzing the logical elements in Plato\u2019s work, whereas Plato practiced logical proof spontaneously and intuitively without formulating the rules for it. Here again, we meet the principle of Aristotle\u2019s inferiority to Plato, which determines the harmonizing trend as well as its limitations.\r\n\r\nThanks to Marinus\u2019 Life of Proclus and Damascius\u2019 Life of Isidore, we know the role of the study of the works of Aristotle with commentary in the teaching of the School of Athens at the time when Syrianus, then Proclus, then Isidore ran the School. Syrianus initiated Proclus into Plato\u2019s mystical doctrine after Proclus had been adequately prepared by studying the works of Aristotle, as if, so to speak, by way of preparatory or \u2018minor\u2019 mysteries.\r\n\r\nSo, in directing Proclus\u2019 studies, Syrianus proceeds in due order, as Marinus emphasizes, and \u2018does not leap over the threshold\u2019; in other words, Proclus proceeds in the set order and does not miss out any step in the teaching. Isidore, too, came to Plato\u2019s philosophy after studying Aristotle.\r\n\r\nI hope to have shown in this paper that the part played by the study of and commentary on Aristotle\u2019s works remained the same up to the end of Neoplatonism. Aristotle was never studied for his own sake by the Neoplatonists, but always as a necessary preparation for the philosophy of Plato. [conclusion p. 188-189]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mXkoXV2wq7SgBs3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":640,"section_of":354,"pages":"175-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1991]}

Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3, 1991
By: Sheppard, Anne D., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Robinson, Howard (Ed.)
Title Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1991
Published in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition
Pages 165-173
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sheppard, Anne D.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard
Translator(s)
Aristotle’s treatment of phantasia in De anima 3.3 is both suggestive and tantalizing: suggestive because Aristotle seems to be trying to describe a capacity of the mind that cannot be identified either with sense-perception or with rational thought—a capacity which, if it is not the same as what we call "imagination," at least has much in common with it. It is tantalizing because the chapter flits from one point to another and is difficult to interpret as a consistent whole. There have been several recent attempts to make sense of the chapter and relate it to Aristotle’s other remarks about phantasia elsewhere. I shall briefly discuss three of these, which all make some use of modern discussions of imagination. In all three cases, the way they interpret Aristotle’s position is influenced by the account of imagination they themselves favor. It used to be taken for granted that imagination involves having mental images, but this assumption was among the many challenged in the works of Wittgenstein and in Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind. It is now more fashionable to analyze propositions of the form "I imagine that P" than to inquire into hypothetical pictures in the mind. Accordingly, some current interpreters of Aristotle claim that he is interested in the logic of the verb phainesthai, or in a power that interprets the data of perception, rather than in mental images. For example, Malcolm Schofield claims that Aristotle is concerned with the verb phainesthai and the sense in which it expresses a non-committal attitude toward the veridical character of sensory or quasi-sensory experiences. According to Schofield, Aristotle is concerned with "non-paradigmatic sensory experiences"—phenomena that make one say cautiously phainetai ("It looks like an X"). Mental imagery is only one type of such experience and is not Aristotle’s main concern. Martha Nussbaum also emphasizes the connection with the verb phainesthai and explicitly attacks the view that mental images are central to either Aristotelian phantasia or our notion of imagination. Nussbaum claims that Aristotle has a very general interest in how things appear to living creatures. She examines Aristotle’s account of the role of phantasia in animal movement and its relationship to aisthesis and argues that, for Aristotle, aisthesis is simply the passive reception of sense-impressions, while the role of phantasia is to interpret such impressions. More recently, Deborah Modrak has argued for an interpretation of Aristotelian phantasia that once again makes mental images important. She argues against Nussbaum’s interpretation of aisthesis as purely passive and describes phantasia as "the awareness of a sensory content under conditions that are not conducive to veridical perception." Such awareness, she argues, can perfectly well take the form of a mental image. My concern here is not so much to adjudicate among these rival modern interpretations of Aristotle as to inquire what light the Neoplatonist commentators on the De anima throw on the issues raised. It might be thought that this is a futile enterprise, given the very different presuppositions with which the ancient commentators approached Aristotle. Henry Blumenthal has demonstrated in a number of articles that these commentators read Aristotle through Platonizing spectacles and that their interpretation of his psychology is colored by their Platonist assumptions. Nevertheless, if we examine the discussions of De anima 3.3 by the Neoplatonists, some interesting light is cast on the question of whether phantasia involves mental images. In this paper, I shall confine myself to the two Neoplatonist commentaries on the De anima—those attributed to Simplicius and Philoponus. (Themistius, who was not a Neoplatonist, would require separate discussion.) Both commentaries raise problems of authorship, although these do not significantly affect the present inquiry. F. Bossier and C. Steel have argued that the commentary ascribed to Simplicius is not by him but by his contemporary Priscianus Lydus. Whether this is correct or not, the commentary is a product of sixth-century Athenian Neoplatonism. Book 3 of the Greek version of Philoponus’ commentary has been much more conclusively demonstrated to be by the later Alexandrian commentator Stephanus. Part of a Latin translation of Philoponus’ own work on De anima 3 survives, but his comments on 3.3 are not preserved. Those I shall be discussing are by Stephanus. (Where it is possible to compare the two commentators, the views of Stephanus are sometimes quite close to those of Philoponus, so it is likely that Philoponus’ views on 3.3 were not very different from those we find in Stephanus.) [introduction p. 165-167]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1021","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1021,"authors_free":[{"id":1537,"entry_id":1021,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1538,"entry_id":1021,"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":1539,"entry_id":1021,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3","main_title":{"title":"Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3"},"abstract":"Aristotle\u2019s treatment of phantasia in De anima 3.3 is both suggestive and tantalizing: suggestive because Aristotle seems to be trying to describe a capacity of the mind that cannot be identified either with sense-perception or with rational thought\u2014a capacity which, if it is not the same as what we call \"imagination,\" at least has much in common with it. It is tantalizing because the chapter flits from one point to another and is difficult to interpret as a consistent whole. There have been several recent attempts to make sense of the chapter and relate it to Aristotle\u2019s other remarks about phantasia elsewhere. I shall briefly discuss three of these, which all make some use of modern discussions of imagination. In all three cases, the way they interpret Aristotle\u2019s position is influenced by the account of imagination they themselves favor.\r\n\r\nIt used to be taken for granted that imagination involves having mental images, but this assumption was among the many challenged in the works of Wittgenstein and in Gilbert Ryle\u2019s The Concept of Mind. It is now more fashionable to analyze propositions of the form \"I imagine that P\" than to inquire into hypothetical pictures in the mind. Accordingly, some current interpreters of Aristotle claim that he is interested in the logic of the verb phainesthai, or in a power that interprets the data of perception, rather than in mental images.\r\n\r\nFor example, Malcolm Schofield claims that Aristotle is concerned with the verb phainesthai and the sense in which it expresses a non-committal attitude toward the veridical character of sensory or quasi-sensory experiences. According to Schofield, Aristotle is concerned with \"non-paradigmatic sensory experiences\"\u2014phenomena that make one say cautiously phainetai (\"It looks like an X\"). Mental imagery is only one type of such experience and is not Aristotle\u2019s main concern. Martha Nussbaum also emphasizes the connection with the verb phainesthai and explicitly attacks the view that mental images are central to either Aristotelian phantasia or our notion of imagination. Nussbaum claims that Aristotle has a very general interest in how things appear to living creatures. She examines Aristotle\u2019s account of the role of phantasia in animal movement and its relationship to aisthesis and argues that, for Aristotle, aisthesis is simply the passive reception of sense-impressions, while the role of phantasia is to interpret such impressions.\r\n\r\nMore recently, Deborah Modrak has argued for an interpretation of Aristotelian phantasia that once again makes mental images important. She argues against Nussbaum\u2019s interpretation of aisthesis as purely passive and describes phantasia as \"the awareness of a sensory content under conditions that are not conducive to veridical perception.\" Such awareness, she argues, can perfectly well take the form of a mental image.\r\n\r\nMy concern here is not so much to adjudicate among these rival modern interpretations of Aristotle as to inquire what light the Neoplatonist commentators on the De anima throw on the issues raised. It might be thought that this is a futile enterprise, given the very different presuppositions with which the ancient commentators approached Aristotle. Henry Blumenthal has demonstrated in a number of articles that these commentators read Aristotle through Platonizing spectacles and that their interpretation of his psychology is colored by their Platonist assumptions. Nevertheless, if we examine the discussions of De anima 3.3 by the Neoplatonists, some interesting light is cast on the question of whether phantasia involves mental images.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I shall confine myself to the two Neoplatonist commentaries on the De anima\u2014those attributed to Simplicius and Philoponus. (Themistius, who was not a Neoplatonist, would require separate discussion.) Both commentaries raise problems of authorship, although these do not significantly affect the present inquiry. F. Bossier and C. Steel have argued that the commentary ascribed to Simplicius is not by him but by his contemporary Priscianus Lydus. Whether this is correct or not, the commentary is a product of sixth-century Athenian Neoplatonism. Book 3 of the Greek version of Philoponus\u2019 commentary has been much more conclusively demonstrated to be by the later Alexandrian commentator Stephanus. Part of a Latin translation of Philoponus\u2019 own work on De anima 3 survives, but his comments on 3.3 are not preserved. Those I shall be discussing are by Stephanus. (Where it is possible to compare the two commentators, the views of Stephanus are sometimes quite close to those of Philoponus, so it is likely that Philoponus\u2019 views on 3.3 were not very different from those we find in Stephanus.) [introduction p. 165-167]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lzX0JUImw1D2csY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1021,"section_of":354,"pages":"165-173","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1991]}

Aristotle’s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides, 1991
By: Kerferd, George B., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Robinson, Howard (Ed.)
Title Aristotle’s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1991
Published in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition
Pages 1-7
Categories no categories
Author(s) Kerferd, George B.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard
Translator(s)
In his De caelo (3.1, 298b 14–24 — 28 A 25 DK), Aristotle makes a strange and puzzling statement about Parmenides and the Eleatics. But before we discuss this in detail, it will be best first to give a translation of the context as a whole, with the relevant statement italicized, and to consider the way in which he is there classifying earlier thinkers. The passage reads as follows: "Perhaps the first question for consideration is whether generation is a fact or not. Earlier searchers after wisdom concerning reality differed both from the accounts which we are now offering and from one another. Some of them abolished generation and destruction completely. Nothing that is, they declare, is either generated or destroyed; it merely seems to us that it is so. Such were Melissus and Parmenides and their followers, and these men, although in other respects their doctrines are excellent, are not to be regarded as speaking from the point of view of natural science. For the existence of certain entities that are neither generated nor subject to any kind of change is a matter not for natural science but for a different and higher study. These men, however, since they supposed there was nothing else at all apart from the existence of things perceived and on the other hand were the first to contemplate some such (unchanging) entities as a prerequisite for any knowledge or understanding (gnôseôs ê phronêseôs) as a result transferred to sensible objects those accounts which come from the other (higher) source (tôn ekei then logous). Others again, as if from set purpose, came to hold the opposite opinion to that held by these men. For there are some who say that nothing in the world is ungenerated, but all things are subject to generation, and that when generated some things remain indestructible and others are again destroyed. This view was held above all by Hesiod and his followers, and thereafter by the first natural philosophers. These say that all other things are in process of being generated and flow, and nothing is stable. But there is one thing only which persists, from which all these other things are produced by natural transformations. This seems to be the meaning intended by Heraclitus of Ephesus and many others. But there are some who suppose that all body also is generated, combining it out of plane surfaces and separating it again into such planes." Aristotle’s classification here would seem at first sight to be threefold: Those who deny all generation and destruction as mere illusions. Those who say nothing is ungenerated but everything comes to be, although once generated, some things are exempt from destruction while others are again destroyed. Those who would generate all solids from geometrical shapes or planes. But there is an obscurity about the second group, said to be led by Hesiod and his followers, with whom are to be associated "the earliest natural philosophers." The reference to Hesiod must surely be to his doctrine of Chaos, which was the first to come into existence (Theogony 116) and from which, in due course, all other things arose. Grouped with him are the earliest natural philosophers (hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes), which suggests to us at first reading the Ionians. But in this case, Aristotle would be saying, for example, that the water of Thales itself came into existence before other things were generated from it. This seems in conflict both with the usual view of the Ionians in antiquity and also with what seems to be their characterization in the following two sentences, which describe a doctrine according to which there is a single substance persisting through the various transmutations that produce phenomena. A resolution of this problem is propounded by Simplicius in his commentary on the passage. He takes the words hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes to refer to those whom Aristotle elsewhere calls hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes (Metaphysics 983b28), namely Orpheus and Musaeus. This opens the way to the view that the Ionians are first referred to in the sentence following next after hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes, which begins with the words hoi de. The result is to divide Aristotle’s second class into two, producing a total of four, not three, classifications. This was indeed what Simplicius intended, as can be seen in his statement tetrachê dieile tas peri geneseôs doxas (In De caelo, 556.3). These will then be: No generation at all. All things are generated, and some of these things then persist permanently. Most things are generated but not the primary substances. All bodily things are generated from ungenerated geometrical entities. Whatever may be the correct analysis of what Aristotle is saying here, there can be no doubt that he places the Eleatics in category (1)—no generation at all. But a major difficulty arises from his statement that for the Eleatics there is nothing else apart from things perceived and that they applied to things perceived the concepts appropriate to unchanging entities, which belong to a different field altogether. On the whole, this statement seems to have provoked irritation rather than interest or respect, and it is commonly dismissed as mistaken. Harold Chemiss, writing in 1935, says that here: "The Eleatic doctrine is rejected as unphysical. But the origin is differently explained. The Eleatics were the first to see that knowledge requires the existence of immutable substances; but, thinking that sensible objects alone existed, they applied to them the arguments concerning objects of thought. Aristotle derives this account by a literal interpretation of Plato, Parmenides 135b-c. But cf. Sophist 249b-d." [introduction p. 1-3]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"889","_score":null,"_source":{"id":889,"authors_free":[{"id":1309,"entry_id":889,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":215,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kerferd, George B.","free_first_name":"George B.","free_last_name":"Kerferd","norm_person":{"id":215,"first_name":" George B.","last_name":"Kerferd","full_name":"Kerferd, George B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158138547","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1310,"entry_id":889,"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":1311,"entry_id":889,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle\u2019s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle\u2019s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides"},"abstract":"In his De caelo (3.1, 298b 14\u201324 \u2014 28 A 25 DK), Aristotle makes a strange and puzzling statement about Parmenides and the Eleatics. But before we discuss this in detail, it will be best first to give a translation of the context as a whole, with the relevant statement italicized, and to consider the way in which he is there classifying earlier thinkers. The passage reads as follows:\r\n\r\n\"Perhaps the first question for consideration is whether generation is a fact or not. Earlier searchers after wisdom concerning reality differed both from the accounts which we are now offering and from one another. Some of them abolished generation and destruction completely. Nothing that is, they declare, is either generated or destroyed; it merely seems to us that it is so. Such were Melissus and Parmenides and their followers, and these men, although in other respects their doctrines are excellent, are not to be regarded as speaking from the point of view of natural science. For the existence of certain entities that are neither generated nor subject to any kind of change is a matter not for natural science but for a different and higher study. These men, however, since they supposed there was nothing else at all apart from the existence of things perceived and on the other hand were the first to contemplate some such (unchanging) entities as a prerequisite for any knowledge or understanding (gn\u00f4se\u00f4s \u00ea phron\u00ease\u00f4s) as a result transferred to sensible objects those accounts which come from the other (higher) source (t\u00f4n ekei then logous). Others again, as if from set purpose, came to hold the opposite opinion to that held by these men. For there are some who say that nothing in the world is ungenerated, but all things are subject to generation, and that when generated some things remain indestructible and others are again destroyed. This view was held above all by Hesiod and his followers, and thereafter by the first natural philosophers. These say that all other things are in process of being generated and flow, and nothing is stable. But there is one thing only which persists, from which all these other things are produced by natural transformations. This seems to be the meaning intended by Heraclitus of Ephesus and many others. But there are some who suppose that all body also is generated, combining it out of plane surfaces and separating it again into such planes.\"\r\n\r\nAristotle\u2019s classification here would seem at first sight to be threefold:\r\n\r\n Those who deny all generation and destruction as mere illusions.\r\n Those who say nothing is ungenerated but everything comes to be, although once generated, some things are exempt from destruction while others are again destroyed.\r\n Those who would generate all solids from geometrical shapes or planes.\r\n\r\nBut there is an obscurity about the second group, said to be led by Hesiod and his followers, with whom are to be associated \"the earliest natural philosophers.\" The reference to Hesiod must surely be to his doctrine of Chaos, which was the first to come into existence (Theogony 116) and from which, in due course, all other things arose. Grouped with him are the earliest natural philosophers (hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes), which suggests to us at first reading the Ionians. But in this case, Aristotle would be saying, for example, that the water of Thales itself came into existence before other things were generated from it. This seems in conflict both with the usual view of the Ionians in antiquity and also with what seems to be their characterization in the following two sentences, which describe a doctrine according to which there is a single substance persisting through the various transmutations that produce phenomena.\r\n\r\nA resolution of this problem is propounded by Simplicius in his commentary on the passage. He takes the words hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes to refer to those whom Aristotle elsewhere calls hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes (Metaphysics 983b28), namely Orpheus and Musaeus. This opens the way to the view that the Ionians are first referred to in the sentence following next after hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes, which begins with the words hoi de. The result is to divide Aristotle\u2019s second class into two, producing a total of four, not three, classifications. This was indeed what Simplicius intended, as can be seen in his statement tetrach\u00ea dieile tas peri genese\u00f4s doxas (In De caelo, 556.3). These will then be:\r\n\r\n No generation at all.\r\n All things are generated, and some of these things then persist permanently.\r\n Most things are generated but not the primary substances.\r\n All bodily things are generated from ungenerated geometrical entities.\r\n\r\nWhatever may be the correct analysis of what Aristotle is saying here, there can be no doubt that he places the Eleatics in category (1)\u2014no generation at all. But a major difficulty arises from his statement that for the Eleatics there is nothing else apart from things perceived and that they applied to things perceived the concepts appropriate to unchanging entities, which belong to a different field altogether.\r\n\r\nOn the whole, this statement seems to have provoked irritation rather than interest or respect, and it is commonly dismissed as mistaken. Harold Chemiss, writing in 1935, says that here:\r\n\r\n\"The Eleatic doctrine is rejected as unphysical. But the origin is differently explained. The Eleatics were the first to see that knowledge requires the existence of immutable substances; but, thinking that sensible objects alone existed, they applied to them the arguments concerning objects of thought. Aristotle derives this account by a literal interpretation of Plato, Parmenides 135b-c. But cf. Sophist 249b-d.\" [introduction p. 1-3]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8A6Irhi7CRu4EpE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":215,"full_name":"Kerferd, George B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":889,"section_of":354,"pages":"1-7","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1991]}

Nous pathêtikos in later Greek philosophy, 1991
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Robinson, Howard (Ed.)
Title Nous pathêtikos in later Greek philosophy
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1991
Published in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition
Pages 191-205
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard
Translator(s)
In 1911 H. Kurfess obtained a doctorate from the University of Tübingen with a dissertation on the history of the interpretation of nous poietikos and nous pathetikos} Notoriously the expression nous poietikos never occurs in the text of Aristotle, but its derivation from De mim. 430*11-12 is an easy step, and when philosophers and commentators subsequently discuss it, we know what it is that they are talking about, even if its nature and status remained, and remain, controversial. Similarly nouspathetikos, or rather ho pathetikos nous, occurs only once in the pages of Aristotle, but appears often, if less frequently than nous poietikos, in the texts of his successors and interpreters. In its case, however, though the expression occurs in Aristotle’s De anima, its reference is unclear. To aggravate matters, nous pathetikos quite often appears in his successors in contexts which seem to have nothing to do with the intellect. Yet while nous poietikos has generated an enormous literature from the ancient world up until today, the phrase nous pathetikos has received nothing like the attention of its partner. This paper will examine some of its uses in both commentators and Neo- platonist philosophers in the hope of explaining its appearance and clarifying its meaning. [Introduction, p. 191]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"894","_score":null,"_source":{"id":894,"authors_free":[{"id":1317,"entry_id":894,"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":1319,"entry_id":894,"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":1320,"entry_id":894,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Nous path\u00eatikos in later Greek philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Nous path\u00eatikos in later Greek philosophy"},"abstract":"In 1911 H. Kurfess obtained a doctorate from the University of \r\nT\u00fcbingen with a dissertation on the history of the interpretation of nous \r\npoietikos and nous pathetikos} Notoriously the expression nous poietikos \r\nnever occurs in the text of Aristotle, but its derivation from De mim. \r\n430*11-12 is an easy step, and when philosophers and commentators \r\nsubsequently discuss it, we know what it is that they are talking about, \r\neven if its nature and status remained, and remain, controversial. \r\nSimilarly nouspathetikos, or rather ho pathetikos nous, occurs only once in \r\nthe pages of Aristotle, but appears often, if less frequently than nous \r\npoietikos, in the texts of his successors and interpreters. In its case, \r\nhowever, though the expression occurs in Aristotle\u2019s De anima, its \r\nreference is unclear. To aggravate matters, nous pathetikos quite often \r\nappears in his successors in contexts which seem to have nothing to do \r\nwith the intellect. Yet while nous poietikos has generated an enormous \r\nliterature from the ancient world up until today, the phrase nous \r\npathetikos has received nothing like the attention of its partner. This \r\npaper will examine some of its uses in both commentators and Neo- \r\nplatonist philosophers in the hope of explaining its appearance and \r\nclarifying its meaning. [Introduction, p. 191]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Di0rd034eeOOHeY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":894,"section_of":354,"pages":"191-205","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1991]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer, 1992
By: Algra, Keimpe A., Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Gutas, Dimitri (Ed.)
Title 'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1992
Published in Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings
Pages 141-165
Categories no categories
Author(s) Algra, Keimpe A.
Editor(s) Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri
Translator(s)
Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer—two passages in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics—constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus’ ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5–11 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle’s famous final definition of place as the "inner boundary of the surrounding body." As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13–22 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle’s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus’ conception of place in his Corollarium de loco.

The existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus’ conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the "traditional" view—a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky—fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a "relational" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle’s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz’s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius’ theory of "essential place" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22.

Such an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper "Theophrastus on Place" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus’ fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji’s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle’s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place.

The aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus’ ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle’s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus’ commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus’ position.

The structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle’s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus’ aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle’s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe—pace Sorabji—that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle’s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle’s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus’ commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus’ Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus’ position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V).

The resulting interpretation of Theophrastus’ position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the "traditional" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji’s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle’s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1005","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1005,"authors_free":[{"id":1511,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1512,"entry_id":1005,"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":1513,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer","main_title":{"title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer"},"abstract":"Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer\u2014two passages in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics\u2014constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5\u201311 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle\u2019s famous final definition of place as the \"inner boundary of the surrounding body.\" As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13\u201322 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place in his Corollarium de loco.\r\n\r\nThe existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the \"traditional\" view\u2014a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky\u2014fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a \"relational\" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle\u2019s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz\u2019s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius\u2019 theory of \"essential place\" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22.\r\n\r\nSuch an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper \"Theophrastus on Place\" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus\u2019 fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji\u2019s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle\u2019s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place.\r\n\r\nThe aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus\u2019 position.\r\n\r\nThe structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus\u2019 aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle\u2019s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe\u2014pace Sorabji\u2014that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle\u2019s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle\u2019s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus\u2019 Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus\u2019 position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V).\r\n\r\nThe resulting interpretation of Theophrastus\u2019 position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the \"traditional\" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji\u2019s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle\u2019s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0oHBoWr21Bfhamu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1005,"section_of":294,"pages":"141-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer"]}

A “New” Text of Alexander on the Soul’s Motion, 1997
By: Rashed, Marwan, Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title A “New” Text of Alexander on the Soul’s Motion
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1997
Published in Aristotle and after
Pages 181-195
Categories no categories
Author(s) Rashed, Marwan
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus’ criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: "and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus’ theory, either directly or through Aristotle’s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice.

To conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows:

    The ‘Aristotelian’ claim of the intellect from without.
    Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move.
    Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity.
    Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles’ solution to Atticus’ criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes.
    Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus’ vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution.

Thus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1061","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1061,"authors_free":[{"id":1610,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1611,"entry_id":1061,"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":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion","main_title":{"title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"},"abstract":"A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus\u2019 criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: \"and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)\". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus\u2019 theory, either directly or through Aristotle\u2019s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice.\r\n\r\nTo conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\n The \u2018Aristotelian\u2019 claim of the intellect from without.\r\n Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move.\r\n Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity.\r\n Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles\u2019 solution to Atticus\u2019 criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes.\r\n Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus\u2019 vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution.\r\n\r\nThus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/roAfpopRonK2aKn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1061,"section_of":199,"pages":"181-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8uyail9ZCl9wfr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"]}

An Introduction to Aspasius, 1999
By: Barnes, Jonathan, Alberti, Antonina (Ed.), Sharples, Robert W. (Ed.)
Title An Introduction to Aspasius
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1999
Published in Aspasius: The Earliest Extant Commentary on Aristotle's Ethics
Pages 1-50
Categories no categories
Author(s) Barnes, Jonathan
Editor(s) Alberti, Antonina , Sharples, Robert W.
Translator(s)
The text, An Introduction to Aspasius, explores his life, works, and his Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. It examines Aspasius’ contributions to ethical philosophy and his relationship with Aristotle’s texts, highlighting his influence on the interpretation and transmission of Aristotelian thought. [derived from the whole text]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"633","_score":null,"_source":{"id":633,"authors_free":[{"id":893,"entry_id":633,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":894,"entry_id":633,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":506,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Alberti, Antonina","free_first_name":"Antonina","free_last_name":"Alberti","norm_person":{"id":506,"first_name":"Antonina","last_name":"Alberti","full_name":"Alberti, Antonina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":895,"entry_id":633,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}}],"entry_title":"An Introduction to Aspasius","main_title":{"title":"An Introduction to Aspasius"},"abstract":"The text, An Introduction to Aspasius, explores his life, works, and his Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. It examines Aspasius\u2019 contributions to ethical philosophy and his relationship with Aristotle\u2019s texts, highlighting his influence on the interpretation and transmission of Aristotelian thought. [derived from the whole text]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hbcmVxtFs2Lthsj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":506,"full_name":"Alberti, Antonina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":633,"section_of":286,"pages":"1-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":286,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aspasius: The Earliest Extant Commentary on Aristotle's Ethics","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Alberti_Sharples_1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"This book comprises essays on the nature of Aspasius\u2019 commentary, his interpretation of Aristotle, and his own place in the history of thought. The contributions are in English or Italian.\r\n\r\nAspasius\u2019 commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics is the earliest ancient commentary on Aristotle of which extensive parts survive in their original form. It is important both for the history of commentary as a genre and for the history of philosophical thought in the first two centuries A.D.; it is also still valuable as what its author intended it to be, an aid in interpreting the Ethics. All three aspects are explored by the essays.\r\n\r\nThe book is not formally a commentary on Aspasius\u2019 commentary; but between them the essays consider the interpretation of numerous problematic or significant passages. Full indices will enable readers quickly to locate discussion of particular parts of Aspasius\u2019 work. This volume of essays will form a natural complement to the first ever translation of Aspasius\u2019 commentary into any modern language, currently in preparation by Paul Mercken.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sA4gaXkwHHMBbmx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":286,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi","volume":"17","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["An Introduction to Aspasius"]}

Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited, 1996
By: Schofield, Malcom, Algra, Keimpe A. (Ed.), Runia, David T. (Ed.)
Title Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1996
Published in Polyhistor. Studies in the history and historiography of ancient philosophy: presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his sixtieth birthday
Pages 3-20
Categories no categories
Author(s) Schofield, Malcom
Editor(s) Algra, Keimpe A. , Runia, David T.
Translator(s)
Very  short  papers  are  not  what  his  readers  most  immediately 
associate  with  the  name  of Jaap  Mansfeld.  But  his  piece  entitled 
‘Anaxagoras’ Other World’ runs to less than three full pages of text, 
and  the  notes cover  only half a page  more.1  Perhaps its brevity is 
one of the reasons for its neglect. Schofield in his light revision of 
Raven’s  chapter on Anaxagoras  in  The Presocratic Philosophers does 
not refer  to  it.2  Nor do  more  recent  articles  such  as Inwood’s  or 
Furth’s.3 The neglect is unfortunate.  Of the difficult text Mansfeld 
takes  as  his  topic,  ‘Anaxagoras’  Other World’  seems  to  me  much 
the most persuasive account available in the scholarly literature. In 
what follows I shall advance further considerations in favour of its 
interpretation of the mysterious ‘other world’, and against some of 
the alternatives favoured in other quarters. [p. 3]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1036","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1036,"authors_free":[{"id":1567,"entry_id":1036,"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}},{"id":1568,"entry_id":1036,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1570,"entry_id":1036,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":30,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Runia, David T.","free_first_name":"David T.","free_last_name":"Runia","norm_person":{"id":30,"first_name":"David T.","last_name":"Runia","full_name":"Runia, David T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/113181515","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited","main_title":{"title":"Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited"},"abstract":"Very short papers are not what his readers most immediately \r\nassociate with the name of Jaap Mansfeld. But his piece entitled \r\n\u2018Anaxagoras\u2019 Other World\u2019 runs to less than three full pages of text, \r\nand the notes cover only half a page more.1 Perhaps its brevity is \r\none of the reasons for its neglect. Schofield in his light revision of \r\nRaven\u2019s chapter on Anaxagoras in The Presocratic Philosophers does \r\nnot refer to it.2 Nor do more recent articles such as Inwood\u2019s or \r\nFurth\u2019s.3 The neglect is unfortunate. Of the difficult text Mansfeld \r\ntakes as his topic, \u2018Anaxagoras\u2019 Other World\u2019 seems to me much \r\nthe most persuasive account available in the scholarly literature. In \r\nwhat follows I shall advance further considerations in favour of its \r\ninterpretation of the mysterious \u2018other world\u2019, and against some of \r\nthe alternatives favoured in other quarters. [p. 3]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3yCRGxvPNrTq61L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":285,"full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":30,"full_name":"Runia, David T.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1036,"section_of":162,"pages":"3-20","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":162,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Polyhistor. Studies in the history and historiography of ancient philosophy: presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his sixtieth birthday","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra\/Horst\/Runia1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"During the past three decades Jaap Mansfeld, Professor of Ancient Philosophy in Utrecht, has built up a formidable reputation as a leading scholar in his field. His work has concentrated on the Presocratics, Hellenistic Philosophy, the sources of our knowledge of ancient philosophy (esp. doxography) and the history of scholarship.\r\nIn honour of his sixtieth birthday, colleagues and friends have contributed a collection of articles which represent the state of the art in the study of the history of ancient philosophy and frequently concentrate on subjects in which the honorand has made important discoveries.\r\nThe 22 contributors include M. Baltes, J. Barnes, J. Brunschwig, W.M. Calder III, J. Dillon, P.L. Donini, J. Glucker, A.A. Long, L.M. de Rijk, D. Sedley, P. Schrijvers, and M. Vegetti. The volume concludes with a complete bibliography of Jaap Mansfeld's scholarly work so far. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h3vavPv0hEyKsdh","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":162,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"72","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited"]}

Aristotle’s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides, 1991
By: Kerferd, George B., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Robinson, Howard (Ed.)
Title Aristotle’s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1991
Published in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition
Pages 1-7
Categories no categories
Author(s) Kerferd, George B.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard
Translator(s)
In his De caelo (3.1, 298b 14–24 — 28 A 25 DK), Aristotle makes a strange and puzzling statement about Parmenides and the Eleatics. But before we discuss this in detail, it will be best first to give a translation of the context as a whole, with the relevant statement italicized, and to consider the way in which he is there classifying earlier thinkers. The passage reads as follows:

"Perhaps the first question for consideration is whether generation is a fact or not. Earlier searchers after wisdom concerning reality differed both from the accounts which we are now offering and from one another. Some of them abolished generation and destruction completely. Nothing that is, they declare, is either generated or destroyed; it merely seems to us that it is so. Such were Melissus and Parmenides and their followers, and these men, although in other respects their doctrines are excellent, are not to be regarded as speaking from the point of view of natural science. For the existence of certain entities that are neither generated nor subject to any kind of change is a matter not for natural science but for a different and higher study. These men, however, since they supposed there was nothing else at all apart from the existence of things perceived and on the other hand were the first to contemplate some such (unchanging) entities as a prerequisite for any knowledge or understanding (gnôseôs ê phronêseôs) as a result transferred to sensible objects those accounts which come from the other (higher) source (tôn ekei then logous). Others again, as if from set purpose, came to hold the opposite opinion to that held by these men. For there are some who say that nothing in the world is ungenerated, but all things are subject to generation, and that when generated some things remain indestructible and others are again destroyed. This view was held above all by Hesiod and his followers, and thereafter by the first natural philosophers. These say that all other things are in process of being generated and flow, and nothing is stable. But there is one thing only which persists, from which all these other things are produced by natural transformations. This seems to be the meaning intended by Heraclitus of Ephesus and many others. But there are some who suppose that all body also is generated, combining it out of plane surfaces and separating it again into such planes."

Aristotle’s classification here would seem at first sight to be threefold:

    Those who deny all generation and destruction as mere illusions.
    Those who say nothing is ungenerated but everything comes to be, although once generated, some things are exempt from destruction while others are again destroyed.
    Those who would generate all solids from geometrical shapes or planes.

But there is an obscurity about the second group, said to be led by Hesiod and his followers, with whom are to be associated "the earliest natural philosophers." The reference to Hesiod must surely be to his doctrine of Chaos, which was the first to come into existence (Theogony 116) and from which, in due course, all other things arose. Grouped with him are the earliest natural philosophers (hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes), which suggests to us at first reading the Ionians. But in this case, Aristotle would be saying, for example, that the water of Thales itself came into existence before other things were generated from it. This seems in conflict both with the usual view of the Ionians in antiquity and also with what seems to be their characterization in the following two sentences, which describe a doctrine according to which there is a single substance persisting through the various transmutations that produce phenomena.

A resolution of this problem is propounded by Simplicius in his commentary on the passage. He takes the words hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes to refer to those whom Aristotle elsewhere calls hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes (Metaphysics 983b28), namely Orpheus and Musaeus. This opens the way to the view that the Ionians are first referred to in the sentence following next after hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes, which begins with the words hoi de. The result is to divide Aristotle’s second class into two, producing a total of four, not three, classifications. This was indeed what Simplicius intended, as can be seen in his statement tetrachê dieile tas peri geneseôs doxas (In De caelo, 556.3). These will then be:

    No generation at all.
    All things are generated, and some of these things then persist permanently.
    Most things are generated but not the primary substances.
    All bodily things are generated from ungenerated geometrical entities.

Whatever may be the correct analysis of what Aristotle is saying here, there can be no doubt that he places the Eleatics in category (1)—no generation at all. But a major difficulty arises from his statement that for the Eleatics there is nothing else apart from things perceived and that they applied to things perceived the concepts appropriate to unchanging entities, which belong to a different field altogether.

On the whole, this statement seems to have provoked irritation rather than interest or respect, and it is commonly dismissed as mistaken. Harold Chemiss, writing in 1935, says that here:

"The Eleatic doctrine is rejected as unphysical. But the origin is differently explained. The Eleatics were the first to see that knowledge requires the existence of immutable substances; but, thinking that sensible objects alone existed, they applied to them the arguments concerning objects of thought. Aristotle derives this account by a literal interpretation of Plato, Parmenides 135b-c. But cf. Sophist 249b-d." [introduction p. 1-3]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"889","_score":null,"_source":{"id":889,"authors_free":[{"id":1309,"entry_id":889,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":215,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kerferd, George B.","free_first_name":"George B.","free_last_name":"Kerferd","norm_person":{"id":215,"first_name":" George B.","last_name":"Kerferd","full_name":"Kerferd, George B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158138547","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1310,"entry_id":889,"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":1311,"entry_id":889,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle\u2019s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle\u2019s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides"},"abstract":"In his De caelo (3.1, 298b 14\u201324 \u2014 28 A 25 DK), Aristotle makes a strange and puzzling statement about Parmenides and the Eleatics. But before we discuss this in detail, it will be best first to give a translation of the context as a whole, with the relevant statement italicized, and to consider the way in which he is there classifying earlier thinkers. The passage reads as follows:\r\n\r\n\"Perhaps the first question for consideration is whether generation is a fact or not. Earlier searchers after wisdom concerning reality differed both from the accounts which we are now offering and from one another. Some of them abolished generation and destruction completely. Nothing that is, they declare, is either generated or destroyed; it merely seems to us that it is so. Such were Melissus and Parmenides and their followers, and these men, although in other respects their doctrines are excellent, are not to be regarded as speaking from the point of view of natural science. For the existence of certain entities that are neither generated nor subject to any kind of change is a matter not for natural science but for a different and higher study. These men, however, since they supposed there was nothing else at all apart from the existence of things perceived and on the other hand were the first to contemplate some such (unchanging) entities as a prerequisite for any knowledge or understanding (gn\u00f4se\u00f4s \u00ea phron\u00ease\u00f4s) as a result transferred to sensible objects those accounts which come from the other (higher) source (t\u00f4n ekei then logous). Others again, as if from set purpose, came to hold the opposite opinion to that held by these men. For there are some who say that nothing in the world is ungenerated, but all things are subject to generation, and that when generated some things remain indestructible and others are again destroyed. This view was held above all by Hesiod and his followers, and thereafter by the first natural philosophers. These say that all other things are in process of being generated and flow, and nothing is stable. But there is one thing only which persists, from which all these other things are produced by natural transformations. This seems to be the meaning intended by Heraclitus of Ephesus and many others. But there are some who suppose that all body also is generated, combining it out of plane surfaces and separating it again into such planes.\"\r\n\r\nAristotle\u2019s classification here would seem at first sight to be threefold:\r\n\r\n Those who deny all generation and destruction as mere illusions.\r\n Those who say nothing is ungenerated but everything comes to be, although once generated, some things are exempt from destruction while others are again destroyed.\r\n Those who would generate all solids from geometrical shapes or planes.\r\n\r\nBut there is an obscurity about the second group, said to be led by Hesiod and his followers, with whom are to be associated \"the earliest natural philosophers.\" The reference to Hesiod must surely be to his doctrine of Chaos, which was the first to come into existence (Theogony 116) and from which, in due course, all other things arose. Grouped with him are the earliest natural philosophers (hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes), which suggests to us at first reading the Ionians. But in this case, Aristotle would be saying, for example, that the water of Thales itself came into existence before other things were generated from it. This seems in conflict both with the usual view of the Ionians in antiquity and also with what seems to be their characterization in the following two sentences, which describe a doctrine according to which there is a single substance persisting through the various transmutations that produce phenomena.\r\n\r\nA resolution of this problem is propounded by Simplicius in his commentary on the passage. He takes the words hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes to refer to those whom Aristotle elsewhere calls hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes (Metaphysics 983b28), namely Orpheus and Musaeus. This opens the way to the view that the Ionians are first referred to in the sentence following next after hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes, which begins with the words hoi de. The result is to divide Aristotle\u2019s second class into two, producing a total of four, not three, classifications. This was indeed what Simplicius intended, as can be seen in his statement tetrach\u00ea dieile tas peri genese\u00f4s doxas (In De caelo, 556.3). These will then be:\r\n\r\n No generation at all.\r\n All things are generated, and some of these things then persist permanently.\r\n Most things are generated but not the primary substances.\r\n All bodily things are generated from ungenerated geometrical entities.\r\n\r\nWhatever may be the correct analysis of what Aristotle is saying here, there can be no doubt that he places the Eleatics in category (1)\u2014no generation at all. But a major difficulty arises from his statement that for the Eleatics there is nothing else apart from things perceived and that they applied to things perceived the concepts appropriate to unchanging entities, which belong to a different field altogether.\r\n\r\nOn the whole, this statement seems to have provoked irritation rather than interest or respect, and it is commonly dismissed as mistaken. Harold Chemiss, writing in 1935, says that here:\r\n\r\n\"The Eleatic doctrine is rejected as unphysical. But the origin is differently explained. The Eleatics were the first to see that knowledge requires the existence of immutable substances; but, thinking that sensible objects alone existed, they applied to them the arguments concerning objects of thought. Aristotle derives this account by a literal interpretation of Plato, Parmenides 135b-c. But cf. Sophist 249b-d.\" [introduction p. 1-3]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8A6Irhi7CRu4EpE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":215,"full_name":"Kerferd, George B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":889,"section_of":354,"pages":"1-7","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotle\u2019s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides"]}

Bibliothèques et formes du livre a la fin de l’antiquité. Le témoignage de la littérature néoplatonicienne des Ve et VIe siècles, 2000
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Prato, Giancarlo (Ed.)
Title Bibliothèques et formes du livre a la fin de l’antiquité. Le témoignage de la littérature néoplatonicienne des Ve et VIe siècles
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 2000
Published in I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Paleografia Greca (Cremona, 4-10 ottobre 1998), Tomo 2
Pages 601-632
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Prato, Giancarlo
Translator(s)
Quels sont donc les maigres résultats de notre enquête ? On déduit d’un cursus d’études tardo-antique des Ve et VIe siècles la nécessaire existence de riches bibliothèques dont l’histoire ultérieure n’est qu’un tissu d’hypothèses ou de questions nécessaires, et le chemin est long jusqu’à la copie des volumes platoniciens de la Collection philosophique au IXe siècle. Les livres utilisés, conservés ou réalisés dans ces milieux néoplatoniciens devaient probablement – pour les œuvres les plus prolixes du moins – être de ces codices de grand format, et aux vastes marges, évoqués par Monsieur Crisci pour une période il est vrai postérieure de plusieurs décennies.

On a pu mettre en relation le chapitre 27 de la Vie de Proclus avec le célèbre codex de papyrus de Callimaque (P.Oxy. XX 2258), écrit en majuscule alexandrine. Ce codex, décrit en 1959 par Jean Irigoin et en 1971 par sir Eric Turner, est de dimensions stupéfiantes. Il est daté en général du VIe ou du VIIe siècle, et Turner, après Edgar Lobel, le situe plutôt vers 500 ou 600 que vers 700. C’est le meilleur exemple connu, pour cette époque, d’un type de mise en pages comportant un texte et son commentaire. (On lui ajoutera – me suggère Jean Irigoin – l’exemple des citations marginales de Galien et de Cratévas lisibles dans le Dioscoride de Vienne, et qui nous instruisent sur le processus de formation d’une chaîne, un autre exemple postérieur étant le Venetus A de l’Iliade, Marc. gr. 454).

La mise en pages attestée dans le Callimaque se retrouvera, peu après 900, dans le Vat. Urb. gr. 35 (Organon d’Aristote), dont les marges comportent, pour l’Isagogè de Porphyre et le début des Catégories, une compilation de la littérature exégétique alexandrine et athénienne (on y trouve du Simplicius), enrichie çà et là de nouveautés postérieures au VIe siècle. Le module de l’écriture adopté par Aréthas pour transcrire les commentaires dans les marges de l’Urb. gr. 35 permet de saisir une pratique de la micrographie, également illustrée (et de manière extrême) dans un autre contexte et à une tout autre époque, par le codex Mani de Cologne. Plus que le module des commentaires marginaux du Callimaque, les modules infimes du manuscrit d’Aristote comme du codex Mani nous mettent peut-être sur la voie du type d’écriture utilisé pour la copie des œuvres immenses d’un Proclus, d’un Damascius ou d’un Simplicius.

On peut imaginer que les livres de l’école néoplatonicienne prenaient volontiers la forme des codices de grand format déjà évoqués, et dont l’usage est attesté pour des textes profanes ou classiques. S’ils contenaient un texte des auctoritates, de vastes marges pouvaient accueillir des commentaires de l’école (c’est le cas des commentaires de Proclus sur Hésiode et sur Orphée). S’ils contenaient une œuvre exégétique « moderne » (de Proclus ou de Simplicius), la pratique d’écritures de petit module ne pouvait-elle permettre de maintenir dans des limites spatiales maniables des textes correspondant à des centaines de pages dans les éditions modernes ? Mais ce n’est là, bien sûr, qu’une suggestion, ou plutôt une ultime question. [conclusion p. 630-632]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"711","_score":null,"_source":{"id":711,"authors_free":[{"id":1060,"entry_id":711,"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":1061,"entry_id":711,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":195,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prato, Giancarlo","free_first_name":"Giancarlo","free_last_name":"Prato","norm_person":{"id":195,"first_name":"Giancarlo","last_name":"Prato","full_name":"Prato, Giancarlo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143872176","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Biblioth\u00e8ques et formes du livre a la fin de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9. Le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles","main_title":{"title":"Biblioth\u00e8ques et formes du livre a la fin de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9. Le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles"},"abstract":"Quels sont donc les maigres r\u00e9sultats de notre enqu\u00eate ? On d\u00e9duit d\u2019un cursus d\u2019\u00e9tudes tardo-antique des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles la n\u00e9cessaire existence de riches biblioth\u00e8ques dont l\u2019histoire ult\u00e9rieure n\u2019est qu\u2019un tissu d\u2019hypoth\u00e8ses ou de questions n\u00e9cessaires, et le chemin est long jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la copie des volumes platoniciens de la Collection philosophique au IXe si\u00e8cle. Les livres utilis\u00e9s, conserv\u00e9s ou r\u00e9alis\u00e9s dans ces milieux n\u00e9oplatoniciens devaient probablement \u2013 pour les \u0153uvres les plus prolixes du moins \u2013 \u00eatre de ces codices de grand format, et aux vastes marges, \u00e9voqu\u00e9s par Monsieur Crisci pour une p\u00e9riode il est vrai post\u00e9rieure de plusieurs d\u00e9cennies.\r\n\r\nOn a pu mettre en relation le chapitre 27 de la Vie de Proclus avec le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre codex de papyrus de Callimaque (P.Oxy. XX 2258), \u00e9crit en majuscule alexandrine. Ce codex, d\u00e9crit en 1959 par Jean Irigoin et en 1971 par sir Eric Turner, est de dimensions stup\u00e9fiantes. Il est dat\u00e9 en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du VIe ou du VIIe si\u00e8cle, et Turner, apr\u00e8s Edgar Lobel, le situe plut\u00f4t vers 500 ou 600 que vers 700. C\u2019est le meilleur exemple connu, pour cette \u00e9poque, d\u2019un type de mise en pages comportant un texte et son commentaire. (On lui ajoutera \u2013 me sugg\u00e8re Jean Irigoin \u2013 l\u2019exemple des citations marginales de Galien et de Crat\u00e9vas lisibles dans le Dioscoride de Vienne, et qui nous instruisent sur le processus de formation d\u2019une cha\u00eene, un autre exemple post\u00e9rieur \u00e9tant le Venetus A de l\u2019Iliade, Marc. gr. 454).\r\n\r\nLa mise en pages attest\u00e9e dans le Callimaque se retrouvera, peu apr\u00e8s 900, dans le Vat. Urb. gr. 35 (Organon d\u2019Aristote), dont les marges comportent, pour l\u2019Isagog\u00e8 de Porphyre et le d\u00e9but des Cat\u00e9gories, une compilation de la litt\u00e9rature ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique alexandrine et ath\u00e9nienne (on y trouve du Simplicius), enrichie \u00e7\u00e0 et l\u00e0 de nouveaut\u00e9s post\u00e9rieures au VIe si\u00e8cle. Le module de l\u2019\u00e9criture adopt\u00e9 par Ar\u00e9thas pour transcrire les commentaires dans les marges de l\u2019Urb. gr. 35 permet de saisir une pratique de la micrographie, \u00e9galement illustr\u00e9e (et de mani\u00e8re extr\u00eame) dans un autre contexte et \u00e0 une tout autre \u00e9poque, par le codex Mani de Cologne. Plus que le module des commentaires marginaux du Callimaque, les modules infimes du manuscrit d\u2019Aristote comme du codex Mani nous mettent peut-\u00eatre sur la voie du type d\u2019\u00e9criture utilis\u00e9 pour la copie des \u0153uvres immenses d\u2019un Proclus, d\u2019un Damascius ou d\u2019un Simplicius.\r\n\r\nOn peut imaginer que les livres de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne prenaient volontiers la forme des codices de grand format d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9voqu\u00e9s, et dont l\u2019usage est attest\u00e9 pour des textes profanes ou classiques. S\u2019ils contenaient un texte des auctoritates, de vastes marges pouvaient accueillir des commentaires de l\u2019\u00e9cole (c\u2019est le cas des commentaires de Proclus sur H\u00e9siode et sur Orph\u00e9e). S\u2019ils contenaient une \u0153uvre ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique \u00ab moderne \u00bb (de Proclus ou de Simplicius), la pratique d\u2019\u00e9critures de petit module ne pouvait-elle permettre de maintenir dans des limites spatiales maniables des textes correspondant \u00e0 des centaines de pages dans les \u00e9ditions modernes ? Mais ce n\u2019est l\u00e0, bien s\u00fbr, qu\u2019une suggestion, ou plut\u00f4t une ultime question. [conclusion p. 630-632]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/csXi7Zihz5LcEep","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":195,"full_name":"Prato, Giancarlo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":711,"section_of":158,"pages":"601-632","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":158,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"it","title":"I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Paleografia Greca (Cremona, 4-10 ottobre 1998), Tomo 2","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Prato2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kvRD4rywoYZSgSs","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":158,"pubplace":"Florence","publisher":"Gonnelli","series":"Papyrologica Florentina","volume":"31","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Biblioth\u00e8ques et formes du livre a la fin de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9. Le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles"]}

Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle, 1995
By: Algra, Keimpe A., Algra, Keimpe A. (Ed.)
Title Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1995
Published in Concepts of space in Greek thought
Pages 121-191
Categories no categories
Author(s) Algra, Keimpe A.
Editor(s) Algra, Keimpe A.
Translator(s)
The investigations of the present chapter took the different concepts of place (topos) as they appear in the Corpus Aristotelicum as their starting point. First, in sections 4.1-4.3, I discussed the relationship between the concept of topos which appears in the course of the discussion of the category poson in the Cat. and the famous definition of topos established in Phys. A. Though scholars like Duhem and Jammer, and more recently, King and Mendell have taken these passages seriously as containing an unambiguous account of physical place¹⁵¹—and have consequently tried their hardest to establish in what way these passages were related to the account in Phys. A—I concluded that they present enough problems of their own to invalidate such claims.

If we take the now more or less universally accepted relative chronology of the surviving school works as established—and I have not been able to find reasons for not doing so—and if we may thus assume that the Cat. was written some five or ten years earlier than Phys. A, we may conclude that insofar as we might speak of a development of Aristotle’s philosophy of place between the Cat. and Phys. A, this development should not be described as the substitution of one articulate view by another, but rather as a growing awareness of the problems inherent in the common-sense notions of place and space. This seemed to be confirmed by the findings of section 4.4.

There I investigated Aristotle’s dialectical method in general and in Phys. A in particular. Against Owen on the one hand, and Morsink on the other, I argued that the data from which Aristotle’s dialectical procedure in Phys. A took its start were for the most part what might be called the ‘theoretical terms’ of the ‘physical system’ of everyday thought. Concerning such a theoretical physical term as topos, which is not directly linked to experience, Aristotle took apparent facts, i.e., views endorsed by the world at large or by some individual philosophers, as his starting point.

We might call this, with Morsink¹⁵², a process of ‘conjectures and refutations,’ as long as it is kept in mind that in Aristotelian dialectic such ‘conjectures’ usually do not spring forth from the genius of the individual physicist, but are largely determined by the conventions of everyday thought and common parlance¹⁵³. We saw that the whole further process boiled down to the scrutinizing and refining of these ‘apparent features.’ A number of them were rejected for involving insoluble aporiai. Those features that survived the dialectical investigation were incorporated in Aristotle’s eventual ‘physical’ concept of place.

All this involved the recognition that ordinary thought and common parlance did not use the term topos in a very coherent manner and that the actual task of the physicist was to eliminate those connotations of the term which, for all their prima facie plausibility, turned out to be of no use in the context of physical theory as a whole. Thus, the relation between the account of topos in the Cat. and that of Phys. A could be explained. In the Cat., Aristotle was using topos in one of the at-first-sight plausible senses of common parlance, which were reviewed and rejected in Phys. A.

On the other hand, as section 4.5 showed, this unorthodox concept of topos as a three-dimensional self-subsistent extension crops up in a number of passages in the more sophisticated physical writings as well, probably because, as an inveterate façon de parler, it was still hard to banish altogether, and probably also because Aristotle’s own orthodox concept did not prove to be useful in all circumstances.

As a whole, the present chapter seems to corroborate our thesis of chapter 1, viz., that Greek philosophical theories of space and place were closely linked to—and indeed started off from—the ways in which spatial terms might be used in ordinary language. As I concluded in chapter 3, it was a more or less unreflective use of some of the ambiguities of common parlance which was partly responsible for the obscurities in Plato’s receptacle account. In the present chapter, we noticed that in the course of his philosophical career, Aristotle did develop an awareness of the ambiguities and equivocations of everyday thinking and speaking and that for him, the conventions of ordinary language and the difficulties they involved constituted the raw material for his dialectical inquiries into the nature of such theoretical entities as place and space. [conclusion p. 189-191]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1158","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1158,"authors_free":[{"id":1731,"entry_id":1158,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2348,"entry_id":1158,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle"},"abstract":"The investigations of the present chapter took the different concepts of place (topos) as they appear in the Corpus Aristotelicum as their starting point. First, in sections 4.1-4.3, I discussed the relationship between the concept of topos which appears in the course of the discussion of the category poson in the Cat. and the famous definition of topos established in Phys. A. Though scholars like Duhem and Jammer, and more recently, King and Mendell have taken these passages seriously as containing an unambiguous account of physical place\u00b9\u2075\u00b9\u2014and have consequently tried their hardest to establish in what way these passages were related to the account in Phys. A\u2014I concluded that they present enough problems of their own to invalidate such claims.\r\n\r\nIf we take the now more or less universally accepted relative chronology of the surviving school works as established\u2014and I have not been able to find reasons for not doing so\u2014and if we may thus assume that the Cat. was written some five or ten years earlier than Phys. A, we may conclude that insofar as we might speak of a development of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy of place between the Cat. and Phys. A, this development should not be described as the substitution of one articulate view by another, but rather as a growing awareness of the problems inherent in the common-sense notions of place and space. This seemed to be confirmed by the findings of section 4.4.\r\n\r\nThere I investigated Aristotle\u2019s dialectical method in general and in Phys. A in particular. Against Owen on the one hand, and Morsink on the other, I argued that the data from which Aristotle\u2019s dialectical procedure in Phys. A took its start were for the most part what might be called the \u2018theoretical terms\u2019 of the \u2018physical system\u2019 of everyday thought. Concerning such a theoretical physical term as topos, which is not directly linked to experience, Aristotle took apparent facts, i.e., views endorsed by the world at large or by some individual philosophers, as his starting point.\r\n\r\nWe might call this, with Morsink\u00b9\u2075\u00b2, a process of \u2018conjectures and refutations,\u2019 as long as it is kept in mind that in Aristotelian dialectic such \u2018conjectures\u2019 usually do not spring forth from the genius of the individual physicist, but are largely determined by the conventions of everyday thought and common parlance\u00b9\u2075\u00b3. We saw that the whole further process boiled down to the scrutinizing and refining of these \u2018apparent features.\u2019 A number of them were rejected for involving insoluble aporiai. Those features that survived the dialectical investigation were incorporated in Aristotle\u2019s eventual \u2018physical\u2019 concept of place.\r\n\r\nAll this involved the recognition that ordinary thought and common parlance did not use the term topos in a very coherent manner and that the actual task of the physicist was to eliminate those connotations of the term which, for all their prima facie plausibility, turned out to be of no use in the context of physical theory as a whole. Thus, the relation between the account of topos in the Cat. and that of Phys. A could be explained. In the Cat., Aristotle was using topos in one of the at-first-sight plausible senses of common parlance, which were reviewed and rejected in Phys. A.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, as section 4.5 showed, this unorthodox concept of topos as a three-dimensional self-subsistent extension crops up in a number of passages in the more sophisticated physical writings as well, probably because, as an inveterate fa\u00e7on de parler, it was still hard to banish altogether, and probably also because Aristotle\u2019s own orthodox concept did not prove to be useful in all circumstances.\r\n\r\nAs a whole, the present chapter seems to corroborate our thesis of chapter 1, viz., that Greek philosophical theories of space and place were closely linked to\u2014and indeed started off from\u2014the ways in which spatial terms might be used in ordinary language. As I concluded in chapter 3, it was a more or less unreflective use of some of the ambiguities of common parlance which was partly responsible for the obscurities in Plato\u2019s receptacle account. In the present chapter, we noticed that in the course of his philosophical career, Aristotle did develop an awareness of the ambiguities and equivocations of everyday thinking and speaking and that for him, the conventions of ordinary language and the difficulties they involved constituted the raw material for his dialectical inquiries into the nature of such theoretical entities as place and space. [conclusion p. 189-191]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Vx1GYydMNj4awhc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1158,"section_of":232,"pages":"121-191","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":232,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Concepts of space in Greek thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra1995c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Concepts of Space in Greek Thought studies ancient Greek theories of physical space and place, in particular those of the classical and Hellenistic period. These theories are explained primarily with reference to the general philosophical or methodological framework within which they took shape. Special attention is paid to the nature and status of the sources. Two introductory chapters deal with the interrelations between various concepts of space and with Greek spatial terminology (including case studies of the Eleatics, Democritus and Epicurus). The remaining chapters contain detailed studies on the theories of space of Plato, Aristotle, the early Peripatetics and the Stoics.\r\nThe book is especially useful for historians of ancient physics, but may also be of interest to students of Aristotelian dialectic, ancient metaphysics, doxography, and medieval and early modern physics.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Goiwos39VOpY6H9","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":232,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"65","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle"]}

Counting Plato's Principles, 1995
By: Sharples, Robert W., Ayres, Lewis (Ed.)
Title Counting Plato's Principles
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1995
Published in The Passionate Intellect. Essays on the Transformation of Classical Tradition
Pages 67-82
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s) Ayres, Lewis
Translator(s)
The classification of physical theories by the number of principles involved goes back to Aristotle (Physics 1.2), in a less formal way to Plato (Sophist 242c-d), and perhaps even further to the period of the Sophists. It is still echoed in modern textbooks on the Presocratics. What is perhaps less familiar is that, naturally enough, this approach was not, in antiquity, confined to the Presocratics. The present paper is concerned with ancient attempts to apply such an analysis to one notable successor of the Presocratics, namely Plato. It is greatly indebted to the work of scholars expert in the field, notably John Dillon and Harold Tarrant. However, I hope that it may present familiar material in a new perspective and, even if its main conclusion is highly speculative, stimulate further thought and debate on a period of the history of philosophy which, with some notable exceptions, has been too little studied in English-speaking countries.

In his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics 1.2, Simplicius, dealing with those who postulated a limited plurality of principles, mentions those who asserted two (Parmenides in the Way of Seeming and the Stoics), three (Aristotle himself, later in Physics 1), and four (Empedocles). He then deals with Plato and concludes with the Pythagoreans, who, he says, recognized ten principles—the numbers of the decad, or the ten pairs in the Table of Opposites.

Where Plato is concerned, Simplicius first states his own view: that Plato postulated three causes (kurias) in the strict sense and three auxiliary causes (sunaitia). The causes in the strict sense are “the maker, the paradigm, and the end,” while the three auxiliary causes are “the matter, the form, and the instrument.” (Here, “form” must refer to the Aristotelian immanent form as opposed to the transcendent Platonic paradigm.) But Simplicius then goes on to cite two other views.

Theophrastus, he says, assigned only two principles to Plato: matter, called “receptive of all things” (clearly the Receptacle of Timaeus 51A, generally equated with matter by later interpreters), and the cause and source of movement, which Theophrastus says Plato “attaches to the power of god and of the good.” Alexander of Aphrodisias, however, attributed to Plato three principles: “the matter, the maker, and the paradigm.” This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Timaeus, the “maker” being the Demiurge. For if a principle is that which is primary, not preceded by anything else, then, on a literal interpretation of the Timaeus, the Demiurge, the Forms (which he uses as his model), and the Receptacle each seem to be ultimates, not derived from any further principle.

Nothing is said in the Timaeus about the derivation of the Forms from the One or the Good; and the Receptacle does not derive from another principle in the way Neoplatonist Matter derives from the One. Indeed, Dorrie contrasts the “paratactic” nature of this three-principles interpretation—treating the principles as equal and co-ordinate—with the “hierarchic” views of Xenocrates, and sees the former as holding back the development of transcendence in Platonism. Certain passages of the Timaeus suggest rather a two-principles interpretation, but here the principles would be the Receptacle and the Forms, rather than the Demiurge. [introduction p. 67-70]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1026","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1026,"authors_free":[{"id":1549,"entry_id":1026,"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":1550,"entry_id":1026,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":466,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ayres, Lewis","free_first_name":"Lewis","free_last_name":"Ayres","norm_person":{"id":466,"first_name":"Lewis","last_name":"Ayres,","full_name":"Ayres, Lewis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138237336","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Counting Plato's Principles","main_title":{"title":"Counting Plato's Principles"},"abstract":"The classification of physical theories by the number of principles involved goes back to Aristotle (Physics 1.2), in a less formal way to Plato (Sophist 242c-d), and perhaps even further to the period of the Sophists. It is still echoed in modern textbooks on the Presocratics. What is perhaps less familiar is that, naturally enough, this approach was not, in antiquity, confined to the Presocratics. The present paper is concerned with ancient attempts to apply such an analysis to one notable successor of the Presocratics, namely Plato. It is greatly indebted to the work of scholars expert in the field, notably John Dillon and Harold Tarrant. However, I hope that it may present familiar material in a new perspective and, even if its main conclusion is highly speculative, stimulate further thought and debate on a period of the history of philosophy which, with some notable exceptions, has been too little studied in English-speaking countries.\r\n\r\nIn his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 1.2, Simplicius, dealing with those who postulated a limited plurality of principles, mentions those who asserted two (Parmenides in the Way of Seeming and the Stoics), three (Aristotle himself, later in Physics 1), and four (Empedocles). He then deals with Plato and concludes with the Pythagoreans, who, he says, recognized ten principles\u2014the numbers of the decad, or the ten pairs in the Table of Opposites.\r\n\r\nWhere Plato is concerned, Simplicius first states his own view: that Plato postulated three causes (kurias) in the strict sense and three auxiliary causes (sunaitia). The causes in the strict sense are \u201cthe maker, the paradigm, and the end,\u201d while the three auxiliary causes are \u201cthe matter, the form, and the instrument.\u201d (Here, \u201cform\u201d must refer to the Aristotelian immanent form as opposed to the transcendent Platonic paradigm.) But Simplicius then goes on to cite two other views.\r\n\r\nTheophrastus, he says, assigned only two principles to Plato: matter, called \u201creceptive of all things\u201d (clearly the Receptacle of Timaeus 51A, generally equated with matter by later interpreters), and the cause and source of movement, which Theophrastus says Plato \u201cattaches to the power of god and of the good.\u201d Alexander of Aphrodisias, however, attributed to Plato three principles: \u201cthe matter, the maker, and the paradigm.\u201d This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Timaeus, the \u201cmaker\u201d being the Demiurge. For if a principle is that which is primary, not preceded by anything else, then, on a literal interpretation of the Timaeus, the Demiurge, the Forms (which he uses as his model), and the Receptacle each seem to be ultimates, not derived from any further principle.\r\n\r\nNothing is said in the Timaeus about the derivation of the Forms from the One or the Good; and the Receptacle does not derive from another principle in the way Neoplatonist Matter derives from the One. Indeed, Dorrie contrasts the \u201cparatactic\u201d nature of this three-principles interpretation\u2014treating the principles as equal and co-ordinate\u2014with the \u201chierarchic\u201d views of Xenocrates, and sees the former as holding back the development of transcendence in Platonism. Certain passages of the Timaeus suggest rather a two-principles interpretation, but here the principles would be the Receptacle and the Forms, rather than the Demiurge. [introduction p. 67-70]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/puTtXSWDrrAPkL9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":466,"full_name":"Ayres, Lewis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1026,"section_of":318,"pages":"67-82","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":318,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Passionate Intellect. Essays on the Transformation of Classical Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ayres1995","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Ian Kidd, of the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, has long been known as a world-class scholar of ancient philosophy and of Posidonius, in particular. Through his long struggle with the fragments of Posidonius, Kidd has done more than any other scholar of ancient philosophy to dispel the myth of \"Pan-Posidonianism.\" He has presented a clearer picture of the Posidonius to whom we may have access. The Passionate Intellect is both a Festschrift offered to Professor Kidd and an important collection of essays on the transformation of classical traditions.\r\n\r\nThe bulk of this volume is built around the theme of Kidd's own inaugural lecture at St. Andrews, \"The Passionate Intellect.\" Many of the contributions follow this theme through by examining how individual people and texts influenced the direction of various traditions. The chapters cover the whole of the classical and late antique periods, including the main genres of classical literature and history, and the gradual emergence of Christian literature and themes in late antiquity.\r\n\r\nMany of the papers naturally concentrate on ancient philosophy and its legacy. Others deal with ancient literary theory, history, poetry, and drama. Most of the papers deal with their subjects at some length and are significant contributions in their own right. The contributors to this collection include key figures hi contemporary classical scholarship, including: C. Carey (London); C. J. Classen (Gottingen); J. Dillon (Dublin); K. J. Dover (St. Andrews); W. W. Fortenbaugh (Rutgers); H. M. Hine (St. Andrews); J. Mansfeld (Utrecht); R. Janko and R. Sharpies (London); and J. S. Richardson (Edinburgh). This book will be invaluable to philosophers, classicists, and cultural historians. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2DA4PTzcMdBrmHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":318,"pubplace":"New Brunswick \u2013 London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Counting Plato's Principles"]}

Diels' Vorsokratiker, Rückschau und Ausblick, 1999
By: Mansfeld, Jaap (Ed.), Calder, William M. (Ed.), Burkert, Walter
Title Diels' Vorsokratiker, Rückschau und Ausblick
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1999
Published in Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquité : huit exposés suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Genève 17 - 21 août 1998
Pages 169-197
Categories no categories
Author(s) , Burkert, Walter
Editor(s) Mansfeld, Jaap , Calder, William M.
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1462","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1462,"authors_free":[{"id":2532,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2533,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":537,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Calder, William M.","free_first_name":"Calder","free_last_name":"William M.","norm_person":{"id":537,"first_name":"William M.","last_name":"Calder","full_name":"Calder, William M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122129296","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2534,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":538,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Burkert, Walter","free_first_name":"Walter","free_last_name":"Burkert","norm_person":{"id":538,"first_name":"Walter","last_name":"Burkert","full_name":"Burkert, Walter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119476967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick","main_title":{"title":"Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qmaq8lxyMueMGPD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":537,"full_name":"Calder, William M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":538,"full_name":"Burkert, Walter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1462,"section_of":336,"pages":"169-197","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":336,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquit\u00e9 : huit expos\u00e9s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Gen\u00e8ve 17 - 21 ao\u00fbt 1998","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Calder_Mansfeld1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UksPHusSKrnsi7e","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":336,"pubplace":"Gen\u00e8ve","publisher":"Fondation Hardt","series":"Entretiens sur l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"45","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick"]}

Dunamis in "Simplicius", 1996
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Cardullo, R. Loredana (Ed.), Romano, Francesco (Ed.)
Title Dunamis in "Simplicius"
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1996
Published in Dunamis nel Neoplatonismo: atti del II Colloquio internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoplatonismo, Università degli studi di Catania, 6-8 ottobre 1994
Pages 149-172
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Cardullo, R. Loredana , Romano, Francesco
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1495","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1495,"authors_free":[{"id":2593,"entry_id":1495,"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}},{"id":2594,"entry_id":1495,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":24,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana","free_first_name":"R. Loredana","free_last_name":"Cardullo","norm_person":{"id":24,"first_name":"R. Loredana ","last_name":"Cardullo","full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139800220","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2595,"entry_id":1495,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":305,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Dunamis in \"Simplicius\"","main_title":{"title":"Dunamis in \"Simplicius\""},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/abLTBIirPsa77f4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":24,"full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":305,"full_name":"Romano, Francesco","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1495,"section_of":1494,"pages":"149-172","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1494,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"it","title":"Dunamis nel Neoplatonismo: atti del II Colloquio internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoplatonismo, Universit\u00e0 degli studi di Catania, 6-8 ottobre 1994","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Romano_Cardullo_1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PQyCtyKJxkHvx2E","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1494,"pubplace":"Firenze","publisher":"La nuova Italia","series":"Symbolon. Studi e testi di filosofia antica e medievale","volume":"16","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Dunamis in \"Simplicius\""]}

Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Spätantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae'), 1999
By: Erler, Michael, Fuhrer, Therese (Ed.), Erler, Michael (Ed.)
Title Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Spätantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae')
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1999
Published in Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Spätantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier
Pages 105-122
Categories no categories
Author(s) Erler, Michael
Editor(s) Fuhrer, Therese , Erler, Michael
Translator(s)
 Rainer Thiel (Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios’ Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion, 93-103) analysiert präzise, wie Simplikios in seinem Kommentar zu Epiktets Encheiridion den Wert der stoischen Ethik bestimmt: die Befolgung des dort Gesagten sei Voraussetzung für den eigentlichen philosophischen Aufstieg. Auch hier erscheint hellenistische Philosophie also als propädeutische Vorstufe, wobei Simplikios - wie Thiel zu Recht hervorhebt - freilich immer auch die Differenzen zwischen Epiktet und neuplatonischen Auffassungen benennt, was er zu seiner Zeit bereits in einer zurückhaltenden, unpolemischen Form tun kann. Von einer anderen Seite her kommt Michael Erler (Philosophie als Therapie — Hellenistische Philosophie als praeparatio philosophica im Platonismus der Spätantike, 105-22) - auch gestützt auf die Forschungen des Ehepaars Hadot - für Simplikios' Kommentar zu demselben Ergebnis (115: "eine gleichsam verschriftlichte Form schulmäßiger Vorbereitung auf das platonische Philosophiestudium") und gewinnt hieraus für Boethius' Consolatio Philosophiae eine überzeugende Erklärung für das Phänomen, daß stoisches Gedankengut in den ersten drei Büchern eine deutliche Rolle spielt, um danach in den Hintergrund zu treten. Indem Erler Boethius' Schrift in den Kontext platonischer Schulpraxis des allmählichen Aufsteigens zur Erkenntnis rückt, vermag er verständlich zu machen, was der rein literarische Vergleich mit anderer Konsolationsliteratur nicht zu erklären vermochte. In der ersten Werkhälfte geht es darum, den noch ganz im irdischen Leben gefangenen Boethius erst einmal innerweltlich auf die richtige Bahn zu bringen, vor allem, seine Vorstellungen zu reinigen, und hierbei kann auch auf die hellenistische Philosophie zurückgegriffen werden, insoweit sie als Vorbereitung auf die im platonischen Sinne eigentliche Philosophie dienen kann, weswegen Erler diese Funktion als "praeparatio platonica" bezeichnet. Neben dieser Aneignung hellenistischen philosophischen Gutes als propädeutischer Vorübung gibt es aber naturgemäß auch Felder, in denen eine Abgrenzung unvermeidlich ist.

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1519","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1519,"authors_free":[{"id":2635,"entry_id":1519,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2636,"entry_id":1519,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":339,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","free_first_name":"Therese","free_last_name":"Fuhrer","norm_person":{"id":339,"first_name":"Therese","last_name":"Fuhrer","full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117693804","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2637,"entry_id":1519,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Sp\u00e4tantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae')","main_title":{"title":"Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Sp\u00e4tantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae')"},"abstract":" Rainer Thiel (Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios\u2019 Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion, 93-103) analysiert pr\u00e4zise, wie Simplikios in seinem Kommentar zu Epiktets Encheiridion den Wert der stoischen Ethik bestimmt: die Befolgung des dort Gesagten sei Voraussetzung f\u00fcr den eigentlichen philosophischen Aufstieg. Auch hier erscheint hellenistische Philosophie also als prop\u00e4deutische Vorstufe, wobei Simplikios - wie Thiel zu Recht hervorhebt - freilich immer auch die Differenzen zwischen Epiktet und neuplatonischen Auffassungen benennt, was er zu seiner Zeit bereits in einer zur\u00fcckhaltenden, unpolemischen Form tun kann. Von einer anderen Seite her kommt Michael Erler (Philosophie als Therapie \u2014 Hellenistische Philosophie als praeparatio philosophica im Platonismus der Sp\u00e4tantike, 105-22) - auch gest\u00fctzt auf die Forschungen des Ehepaars Hadot - f\u00fcr Simplikios' Kommentar zu demselben Ergebnis (115: \"eine gleichsam verschriftlichte Form schulm\u00e4\u00dfiger Vorbereitung auf das platonische Philosophiestudium\") und gewinnt hieraus f\u00fcr Boethius' Consolatio Philosophiae eine \u00fcberzeugende Erkl\u00e4rung f\u00fcr das Ph\u00e4nomen, da\u00df stoisches Gedankengut in den ersten drei B\u00fcchern eine deutliche Rolle spielt, um danach in den Hintergrund zu treten. Indem Erler Boethius' Schrift in den Kontext platonischer Schulpraxis des allm\u00e4hlichen Aufsteigens zur Erkenntnis r\u00fcckt, vermag er verst\u00e4ndlich zu machen, was der rein literarische Vergleich mit anderer Konsolationsliteratur nicht zu erkl\u00e4ren vermochte. In der ersten Werkh\u00e4lfte geht es darum, den noch ganz im irdischen Leben gefangenen Boethius erst einmal innerweltlich auf die richtige Bahn zu bringen, vor allem, seine Vorstellungen zu reinigen, und hierbei kann auch auf die hellenistische Philosophie zur\u00fcckgegriffen werden, insoweit sie als Vorbereitung auf die im platonischen Sinne eigentliche Philosophie dienen kann, weswegen Erler diese Funktion als \"praeparatio platonica\" bezeichnet. Neben dieser Aneignung hellenistischen philosophischen Gutes als prop\u00e4deutischer Vor\u00fcbung gibt es aber naturgem\u00e4\u00df auch Felder, in denen eine Abgrenzung unvermeidlich ist.","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NeFv0yyCaNc0UCn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":339,"full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1519,"section_of":324,"pages":"105-122","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":324,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Sp\u00e4tantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fuhrer\/Erler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Review by T. Runia: As a generalization it is often remarked that the poor state of our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, based almost exclusively on reports and fragments, is due to the decline of interest in this philosophy during the period of late antiquity. After the schools had closed down by the beginning of the 3rd century C.E., Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean writings ceased to circulate widely, and in the end disappeared completely. Of course the end result of this process cannot be disputed. These writings have simply disappeared and, short of a miracle, they will not resurface.\r\n\r\nBut the process certainly took longer and was less radical in its earlier stages than is often thought. Late ancient philosophers and theologians in many cases still had a considerable knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy and used that knowledge to good effect in their own writings.\r\n\r\nThe theme of the reception of Hellenistic philosophy in late antiquity is the subject of the book under review, which contains fifteen studies originally presented at a conference in Trier in 1997. The studies are in German, with two exceptions, a paper in Italian and one in English. They have been prepared by a group of young scholars, mainly in their 30's and 40's, who in most cases have taken up positions in German and Swiss universities during the past decade or so.\r\n\r\nReviewing the various studies, one cannot but help noticing a marked similarity of method. The subjects treated are on the whole fairly limited in scope, and often concentrate on a particular author and a particular text. The detailed treatment is usually prefaced by an introductory section, which places the subject in a wider context, for example by tracing its development from the end of the Hellenistic period to the time of the author being discussed.These introductory sections can sometimes be very entertaining and informative (as in the case of the article of Christoph Riedweg, who points out remarkable correspondences between the period of late antiquity and our own time), but can also be too much simply a catalogue of authors and texts (as in the case of the survey of Epicureanism from Hadrian to Lactantius in the article by Jochem Althoff). The end result is that we have fifteen small but well-featured islands standing out in the broader sea of the book's subject.\r\n\r\nThe brief introduction competently but very succinctly outlines three connecting themes:\r\n\r\n The role of the Stoa and Epicureanism in Platonist philosophy.\r\n Scepticism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism in Christian literature.\r\n Doctrines of the Hellenistic philosophical schools as general cultural knowledge (Bildungsgut).\r\n\r\nBut no real attempt is made to cover the subject in more general terms. This is increasingly the method of such selective conference volumes. In spite of the general title, it is primarily a book for specialists.\r\n\r\nThe fifteen papers can be more or less divided into the three thematic categories noted above. Four concentrate on Hellenistic themes in later Platonism: Dominic O'Meara on Epicurus Neoplatonicus, Rainer Thiel and Michael Erler on the preparatory role of Hellenistic (and especially Stoic) ethics, Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel on Proclus' doctrine of the origin of evil and its Hellenistic antecedents. Christoph Riedweg, by investigating Julian's use of Stoic and Platonic argumentation in his anti-Christian polemic, bridges the gap with the eight contributions which concentrate on Patristic authors.\r\n\r\nThe intellectual dominance of Augustine is illustrated by the fact that no less than five contributions concentrate on his writings: Maria Bettetini on the background to De musica (very little Hellenistic philosophy here), Karin Schlapbach on Ciceronian and Neoplatonist elements in the proarmia of Contra Academicos I & II, Sabine Harwardt on Stoic argumentation in De beata vita, Christoph Horn on Augustine's moral philosophy in relation to Greek virtue ethics, Therese Fuhrer on the Hellenistic epistemological background of Augustine's concept of faith.\r\n\r\nThe other three specifically Patristic contributions are on Amobius (philosophical themes in his apologetic argumentation, by Sabine Follinger), Lactantius (his use of Epicurus, by Jochem Althoff), and Prudentius (virtue against vice in the Psychomachia, by Carolin Oser-Grote).\r\n\r\nThe volume ends with two more general treatments. Karla Pollman attempts to trace two differing conceptions of fictionality\u2014the Platonic mimesis-model focused on the author and the Stoic signification-model focused more on the reader\u2014from Hellenistic philosophy to their adaptation in late ancient texts. Ulrich Eigler, in an ambitious and stimulating contribution, investigates the cultural context of the kind of amateur use of philosophy that we find, for example, in Jerome's writings. Of these fifteen articles, three stand out on account of the lucidity of their treatment and the importance of their subject. Christoph Horn's method is perhaps somewhat unusual, in that he focuses his treatment of Augustine's virtue ethics almost entirely on a point-by-point rebuttal of the position of the Swedish scholar of a previous generation, Gosta Hok, whom he accuses of interpreting Augustine in such a way as to make him a fideistic opponent of ancient rationalism. In actual fact, Augustine unreservedly takes over the basic theses of ancient ethical rationalism, but in his later years reserves it for followers of the \"true religion,\" without coming to a real discussion with its original Neoplatonist proponents.\r\n\r\nMany of Horn's points are well taken, but one wonders whether in this interpretation the gulf between Augustine's professed method of selective spoliatio and his actual practice of largely uncritical appropriation (as proposed by Horn) does not become too great. What Augustine objects to in ancient rationalism is its intellectual arrogance, the refusal to submit to the yoke of faith. This position seems to me to have revisionary aspirations. The struggle between \"catholic\" and \"protestant\" readings of Augustine is likely to continue.\r\n\r\nIn her paper on the epistemological background to Augustine's conception of faith, Therese Fuhrer argues that it is to be found in the Stoic theory in which assent (adsensio, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) precedes both knowledge (scientia, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7, based on comprehensio, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) and belief (opinio, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1). A priori, this seems not so likely, since the role assigned to volition in the two conceptions is quite different. Nevertheless, Fuhrer manages to show that both in terms of structure and terminology this background does have illuminating features.\r\n\r\nA difficulty remains that no texts indicating an explicit relation between the act of faith and epistemological assent can be found until two passages in very late writings. This article illustrates how difficult it is to pin Augustine down in relation to specific philosophical theories. It is his powerful transforming drive that makes his views so distinctive and so hard to categorize in \"doxographical\" terms.\r\n\r\nThe article of Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel is recommended reading for anyone interested in how ancient philosophers working within the tradition of classical ontology wrestled with the problem of evil. Not only does it give an excellent overview of the dilemmas involved and the solutions attempted, but it also draws on the new translation of Proclus' De malorum substantia, which the authors are preparing.\r\n\r\nThey show how Proclus tries to find a way out of the classical dilemma in which one either has to detract from providence or not take evil seriously enough as a real aspect of the world. Proclus' solution is intriguing but very risky. Any attribution of evil to the first cause is unacceptable, but in the light of Neoplatonist ontological monism this means that one has to understand evil as an (ultimately) uncaused event.\r\n\r\nNot only is this very awkward in light of the Platonic principle nihil fit sine causa, which Proclus fully endorses, but it also seems to reduce evil to a kind of accidental epiphenomenon. Opsomer and Steel argue that Proclus may have found a third way between the Stoa and the Peripatos (which reserves providence for the divine realm only), but at a considerable cost. They tentatively conclude that the Stoa continues to hold the last word in this debate, and that theodicy may well be the worst legacy that this school has left to subsequent philosophy. This is perhaps a somewhat disappointing result, but no better illustration could be given of the importance of studying Hellenistic philosophy as a background for late ancient and patristic philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn furthering this study, the book under review makes a valuable contribution. The volume also shows, as the product of predominantly young scholars, that the future of scholarship in the area of later ancient and Patristic philosophy is in good hands.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Wi5qXtXGHesjYwT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":324,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Sp\u00e4tantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae')"]}

L'arrière-plan néoplatonicien de l'École d'Athènes de Raphaël, 1996
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Hoffmann, Philippe (Ed.), Rinuy, Paul-Louis (Ed.), Farnoux, Alexandre (Coll.) (Ed.)
Title L'arrière-plan néoplatonicien de l'École d'Athènes de Raphaël
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1996
Published in Antiquités imaginaires. La référence antique dans l'art occidental, de la Renaissance à nos jours
Pages 143-158
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Hoffmann, Philippe , Rinuy, Paul-Louis , Farnoux, Alexandre (Coll.)
Translator(s)
Il est néanmoins permis d’insister, comme nous l'avons déjà dit, sur la tonalité manifestement néoplatonicienne de l’œuvre. Tout d’abord, on peut souligner une distorsion entre l’allégorie de la Philosophie et l’École d’Athènes. Il est vrai que l’allégorie est construite sur l’idée d’une dualité des parties de la Philosophie, qui sont donc des parties égales. La légende, «Causarum cognitio», est certainement inspirée par la légende de l’allégorie de la Prudence, peinte vers 1500 par Pietro Vannucci (le Pérugin) dans le Cambio de Pérouse. Le texte qui accompagne la Prudence a été rédigé par le responsable du programme – d’esprit «ficinien» –, l’érudit Francesco Maturanzio, bien connu non seulement comme «modeste auteur de la Cronaca della città di Perugia dal 1492 al 1503», mais aussi comme aristotélicien thomiste, helléniste et collectionneur de manuscrits grecs.

Maturanzio exprimait dans ce programme son adhésion à l'idée d'une conciliation des mondes antique et chrétien, une idée qui devait trouver une expression plus grandiose dans la Chambre de la Signature. On relève notamment, dans la légende de la Prudence de Pérouse, l’expression «...Scrutari verum doceo causasque latentes...». Et comme Raphaël avait travaillé avec le Pérugin, en compagnie de qui il était venu à Rome, le lien entre «scrutari... causas latentes» et «causarum cognitio» est tout à fait plausible. Mais la formule a davantage d'application dans le domaine de la physique que dans celui de l'éthique, de même que l'Artémis d’Éphèse représente la Nature avec ses secrets – l’objet de la partie physique de la Philosophie –, et n’a guère de rapport avec l'éthique.

La dissymétrie est plus nette dans le traitement des deux personnages de Platon et d'Aristote. Le maître est, comme il se doit, à la droite du disciple. La direction des gestes est si contrastée qu’elle ne peut signifier qu'une différence de domaine : les Idées et le Démiurge sont le domaine d'élection de Platon, tandis que le Bonheur humain – le plus grand bonheur qui puisse échoir à l’homme – est ce qu'Aristote vient offrir en un geste généreux, qui s’adresse aux spectateurs de la fresque.

Comment ne pas voir dans cette structure iconographique un écho précis des conceptions néoplatoniciennes ? On retrouve des thèmes que nous avons maintes fois rencontrés et que Raphaël – ou le responsable du programme iconographique – a puisés dans la culture néoplatonicienne de l'époque, chez Marsile Ficin ou Pic de la Mirandole :

    L'harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d’Aristote, tout d'abord : ce sont les deux figures centrales à partir desquelles s'ordonne toute la composition.
    La supériorité de la philosophie de Platon (les «grands mystères» néoplatoniciens) sur celle d’Aristote (les «petits mystères»), qui est la propédeutique à la philosophie de Platon et qui succède elle-même au cycle des sept Arts Libéraux, dont on a voulu déceler la représentation parmi le savant désordre des personnages qui entourent les deux figures centrales.
    La différence des plans ontologiques auxquels se sont élevés les deux penseurs : Platon a décrit le Monde non pas de manière immanente, mais en recherchant ses causes – les Idées et le Démiurge. Il étudie les réalités naturelles elles-mêmes en considérant leur relation à celles qui sont au-dessus de la nature, c'est-à-dire les réalités intelligibles et divines qui en sont les causes. L’étude du Timée, œuvre platonicienne majeure pour le Moyen Âge occidental, relevait aussi dans l'Antiquité du second cycle du cursus néoplatonicien de lecture des dialogues de Platon.

Quant à Aristote, il offre une pensée du bonheur qui doit permettre à l’homme, en menant la vie théorétique – qui est en grande partie une recherche des causes –, de «s’immortaliser autant qu’il est possible». Dans une note, Gombrich signale qu’à la date où Raphaël conçut l’École d’Athènes, il n’existait pas de traduction italienne en édition séparée du Timée ni des Éthiques d’Aristote. On peut ajouter que l’édition princeps de Platon en grec ne devait être publiée qu’en 1513 à Venise (édition aldine), et que Platon était lu à l’époque dans la célèbre traduction latine de Ficin imprimée en 1484. On rappellera dans ce contexte que l’édition princeps des œuvres d’Aristote en grec avait été donnée peu d'années auparavant à Venise par Alde Manuce. Précisément, la Préface grecque d’Alexandre Bondini (Agachemeros), collaborateur d’Alde, justifie l'entreprise par un éloge de la supériorité de la philosophie péripatéticienne, qui procure aux hommes le bonheur (eudaimonia). Peu après, en 1499, paraissait à Venise également l’édition princeps (incunable !) du Commentaire de Simplicius aux Catégories, œuvre dans laquelle les humanistes italiens pouvaient commodément lire le développement que nous avons étudié sur la finalité de la philosophie d’Aristote.

Ces deux remarques bibliographiques ne prétendent en aucun cas assigner une source littéraire à un célèbre détail iconographique. La leçon de méthode et de prudence d’E. Gombrich est exemplaire, et il serait vain de vouloir ajouter une nouvelle hypothèse, impossible à prouver en toute rigueur, à tant d’autres. Ce que l’on peut souligner en revanche, si l’on veut bien admettre que, dans une période d’effervescence intellectuelle comme la Renaissance italienne, les livres publiés étaient lus et que les idées circulaient, c’est un écho troublant entre le thème de la Préface d’Alexandre Bondini (1495), le développement de Simplicius sur le Bonheur comme finalité de la philosophie d’Aristote (imprimé en 1499), et le principe «symphonique» néoplatonicien qui organise et unifie le programme iconographique de l’École d’Athènes (1509–1511). [conclusion p. 154-158]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"682","_score":null,"_source":{"id":682,"authors_free":[{"id":1011,"entry_id":682,"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":1012,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":2022,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":186,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis","free_first_name":"Paul-Louis","free_last_name":"Rinuy","norm_person":{"id":186,"first_name":"Paul-Louis ","last_name":"Rinuy","full_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/14126795X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2392,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":187,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Alexandre","free_last_name":"Farnoux","norm_person":{"id":187,"first_name":"Alexandre ","last_name":"Farnoux","full_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/188370528","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'arri\u00e8re-plan n\u00e9oplatonicien de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes de Rapha\u00ebl","main_title":{"title":"L'arri\u00e8re-plan n\u00e9oplatonicien de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes de Rapha\u00ebl"},"abstract":"Il est n\u00e9anmoins permis d\u2019insister, comme nous l'avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 dit, sur la tonalit\u00e9 manifestement n\u00e9oplatonicienne de l\u2019\u0153uvre. Tout d\u2019abord, on peut souligner une distorsion entre l\u2019all\u00e9gorie de la Philosophie et l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes. Il est vrai que l\u2019all\u00e9gorie est construite sur l\u2019id\u00e9e d\u2019une dualit\u00e9 des parties de la Philosophie, qui sont donc des parties \u00e9gales. La l\u00e9gende, \u00abCausarum cognitio\u00bb, est certainement inspir\u00e9e par la l\u00e9gende de l\u2019all\u00e9gorie de la Prudence, peinte vers 1500 par Pietro Vannucci (le P\u00e9rugin) dans le Cambio de P\u00e9rouse. Le texte qui accompagne la Prudence a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9dig\u00e9 par le responsable du programme \u2013 d\u2019esprit \u00abficinien\u00bb \u2013, l\u2019\u00e9rudit Francesco Maturanzio, bien connu non seulement comme \u00abmodeste auteur de la Cronaca della citt\u00e0 di Perugia dal 1492 al 1503\u00bb, mais aussi comme aristot\u00e9licien thomiste, hell\u00e9niste et collectionneur de manuscrits grecs.\r\n\r\nMaturanzio exprimait dans ce programme son adh\u00e9sion \u00e0 l'id\u00e9e d'une conciliation des mondes antique et chr\u00e9tien, une id\u00e9e qui devait trouver une expression plus grandiose dans la Chambre de la Signature. On rel\u00e8ve notamment, dans la l\u00e9gende de la Prudence de P\u00e9rouse, l\u2019expression \u00ab...Scrutari verum doceo causasque latentes...\u00bb. Et comme Rapha\u00ebl avait travaill\u00e9 avec le P\u00e9rugin, en compagnie de qui il \u00e9tait venu \u00e0 Rome, le lien entre \u00abscrutari... causas latentes\u00bb et \u00abcausarum cognitio\u00bb est tout \u00e0 fait plausible. Mais la formule a davantage d'application dans le domaine de la physique que dans celui de l'\u00e9thique, de m\u00eame que l'Art\u00e9mis d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se repr\u00e9sente la Nature avec ses secrets \u2013 l\u2019objet de la partie physique de la Philosophie \u2013, et n\u2019a gu\u00e8re de rapport avec l'\u00e9thique.\r\n\r\nLa dissym\u00e9trie est plus nette dans le traitement des deux personnages de Platon et d'Aristote. Le ma\u00eetre est, comme il se doit, \u00e0 la droite du disciple. La direction des gestes est si contrast\u00e9e qu\u2019elle ne peut signifier qu'une diff\u00e9rence de domaine : les Id\u00e9es et le D\u00e9miurge sont le domaine d'\u00e9lection de Platon, tandis que le Bonheur humain \u2013 le plus grand bonheur qui puisse \u00e9choir \u00e0 l\u2019homme \u2013 est ce qu'Aristote vient offrir en un geste g\u00e9n\u00e9reux, qui s\u2019adresse aux spectateurs de la fresque.\r\n\r\nComment ne pas voir dans cette structure iconographique un \u00e9cho pr\u00e9cis des conceptions n\u00e9oplatoniciennes ? On retrouve des th\u00e8mes que nous avons maintes fois rencontr\u00e9s et que Rapha\u00ebl \u2013 ou le responsable du programme iconographique \u2013 a puis\u00e9s dans la culture n\u00e9oplatonicienne de l'\u00e9poque, chez Marsile Ficin ou Pic de la Mirandole :\r\n\r\n L'harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d\u2019Aristote, tout d'abord : ce sont les deux figures centrales \u00e0 partir desquelles s'ordonne toute la composition.\r\n La sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 de la philosophie de Platon (les \u00abgrands myst\u00e8res\u00bb n\u00e9oplatoniciens) sur celle d\u2019Aristote (les \u00abpetits myst\u00e8res\u00bb), qui est la prop\u00e9deutique \u00e0 la philosophie de Platon et qui succ\u00e8de elle-m\u00eame au cycle des sept Arts Lib\u00e9raux, dont on a voulu d\u00e9celer la repr\u00e9sentation parmi le savant d\u00e9sordre des personnages qui entourent les deux figures centrales.\r\n La diff\u00e9rence des plans ontologiques auxquels se sont \u00e9lev\u00e9s les deux penseurs : Platon a d\u00e9crit le Monde non pas de mani\u00e8re immanente, mais en recherchant ses causes \u2013 les Id\u00e9es et le D\u00e9miurge. Il \u00e9tudie les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles elles-m\u00eames en consid\u00e9rant leur relation \u00e0 celles qui sont au-dessus de la nature, c'est-\u00e0-dire les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s intelligibles et divines qui en sont les causes. L\u2019\u00e9tude du Tim\u00e9e, \u0153uvre platonicienne majeure pour le Moyen \u00c2ge occidental, relevait aussi dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 du second cycle du cursus n\u00e9oplatonicien de lecture des dialogues de Platon.\r\n\r\nQuant \u00e0 Aristote, il offre une pens\u00e9e du bonheur qui doit permettre \u00e0 l\u2019homme, en menant la vie th\u00e9or\u00e9tique \u2013 qui est en grande partie une recherche des causes \u2013, de \u00abs\u2019immortaliser autant qu\u2019il est possible\u00bb. Dans une note, Gombrich signale qu\u2019\u00e0 la date o\u00f9 Rapha\u00ebl con\u00e7ut l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, il n\u2019existait pas de traduction italienne en \u00e9dition s\u00e9par\u00e9e du Tim\u00e9e ni des \u00c9thiques d\u2019Aristote. On peut ajouter que l\u2019\u00e9dition princeps de Platon en grec ne devait \u00eatre publi\u00e9e qu\u2019en 1513 \u00e0 Venise (\u00e9dition aldine), et que Platon \u00e9tait lu \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque dans la c\u00e9l\u00e8bre traduction latine de Ficin imprim\u00e9e en 1484. On rappellera dans ce contexte que l\u2019\u00e9dition princeps des \u0153uvres d\u2019Aristote en grec avait \u00e9t\u00e9 donn\u00e9e peu d'ann\u00e9es auparavant \u00e0 Venise par Alde Manuce. Pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment, la Pr\u00e9face grecque d\u2019Alexandre Bondini (Agachemeros), collaborateur d\u2019Alde, justifie l'entreprise par un \u00e9loge de la sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 de la philosophie p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne, qui procure aux hommes le bonheur (eudaimonia). Peu apr\u00e8s, en 1499, paraissait \u00e0 Venise \u00e9galement l\u2019\u00e9dition princeps (incunable !) du Commentaire de Simplicius aux Cat\u00e9gories, \u0153uvre dans laquelle les humanistes italiens pouvaient commod\u00e9ment lire le d\u00e9veloppement que nous avons \u00e9tudi\u00e9 sur la finalit\u00e9 de la philosophie d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nCes deux remarques bibliographiques ne pr\u00e9tendent en aucun cas assigner une source litt\u00e9raire \u00e0 un c\u00e9l\u00e8bre d\u00e9tail iconographique. La le\u00e7on de m\u00e9thode et de prudence d\u2019E. Gombrich est exemplaire, et il serait vain de vouloir ajouter une nouvelle hypoth\u00e8se, impossible \u00e0 prouver en toute rigueur, \u00e0 tant d\u2019autres. Ce que l\u2019on peut souligner en revanche, si l\u2019on veut bien admettre que, dans une p\u00e9riode d\u2019effervescence intellectuelle comme la Renaissance italienne, les livres publi\u00e9s \u00e9taient lus et que les id\u00e9es circulaient, c\u2019est un \u00e9cho troublant entre le th\u00e8me de la Pr\u00e9face d\u2019Alexandre Bondini (1495), le d\u00e9veloppement de Simplicius sur le Bonheur comme finalit\u00e9 de la philosophie d\u2019Aristote (imprim\u00e9 en 1499), et le principe \u00absymphonique\u00bb n\u00e9oplatonicien qui organise et unifie le programme iconographique de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes (1509\u20131511). [conclusion p. 154-158]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KewGi1BBbx4GOnk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":186,"full_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":187,"full_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":682,"section_of":165,"pages":"143-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":165,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Antiquit\u00e9s imaginaires. La r\u00e9f\u00e9rence antique dans l'art occidental, de la Renaissance \u00e0 nos jours","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hoffmann1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Rassemblant quatorze contributions de sp\u00e9cialistes de la litt\u00e9rature et de l\u2019histoire de l\u2019art, ce livre tente de donner une s\u00e9rie d\u2019aper\u00e7us pr\u00e9cis des diff\u00e9rentes mani\u00e8res dont la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 a jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le, capital, dans la cr\u00e9ation artistique de la Renaissance \u00e0 nos jours.\r\nDe Rapha\u00ebl jusqu\u2019aux actuels mouvements \u00ab post-modernes \u00bb, la cr\u00e9ation a \u00e9t\u00e9 profond\u00e9ment marqu\u00e9e en Occident par les visages successifs d\u2019une Antiquit\u00e9 sans cesse r\u00e9invent\u00e9e et r\u00e9interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e. Ovide, Philostrate, Platon et Aristote ont \u00e9t\u00e9 au coeur des d\u00e9bats et des r\u00e9flexions des \u00e9crivains et des critiques, tout comme les chefs-d\u2019oeuvre de l\u2019architecture et de la sculpture \u2013 le Parth\u00e9non ou le Laocoon \u2013 ont inspir\u00e9 les artistes au fil de leurs red\u00e9couvertes successives de l\u2019art antique. H\u00e9ritage, influence, r\u00e9invention, Classic revival, Nachleben der Antike ? Les mots et les expressions sont nombreux pour tenter de cerner un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne crucial et chatoyant. Les \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies par Philippe Hoffmann, Paul-Louis Rinuy et Alexandre Farnoux, au terme d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire et d\u2019une table ronde tenus au Centre d\u2019\u00e9tudes anciennes de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure, veulent ouvrir des pistes pour de nouvelles recherches et illustrer divers aspects de la pr\u00e9sence de l\u2019Antique au sein des modernit\u00e9s [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Al1RSBIKKbIdEE7","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":165,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["L'arri\u00e8re-plan n\u00e9oplatonicien de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes de Rapha\u00ebl"]}

La défense de Platon contre Aristote par les néoplatoniciens, 1993
By: Romano, Francesco, Dixsaut, Monique (Ed.)
Title La défense de Platon contre Aristote par les néoplatoniciens
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1993
Published in Contre Platon. Tome I: Le Platonisme Dévoilé
Pages 175-195
Categories no categories
Author(s) Romano, Francesco
Editor(s) Dixsaut, Monique
Translator(s)
Pour aborder le problème de la défense de Platon contre Aristote par les Néoplatoniciens, il est nécessaire d’opérer des distinctions à la fois historiques et théoriques ; il faut en effet tenir compte tant du développement chronologique de la pensée néoplatonicienne que des différences pouvant exister d’une école néoplatonicienne à l’autre. Il semble, par exemple, que Jamblique et Proclus aient adopté des positions sensiblement divergentes sur le problème de savoir si Aristote avait attaqué la théorie des Idées dans sa formulation platonicienne ou dans la fausse interprétation que certains Platoniciens en avaient donnée.
D’après ce que nous disent David [Elias], d’une part :
Δεῖ αὐτὸν μὴ συμπάσχειν τῷ Πλάτωνι· συνδιδοῖσι τῷ πεπονθέν· Ἰάμβλιχος· οὗτος γὰρ προσπάσχων τῷ Πλάτωνι συνδιδοῖσι τῷ Ἀριστοτέλει ὅτι οὐκ ἀντιλέγει τῷ Πλάτωνι διὰ τὰς ἰδέας
(« L’exégète ne doit pas sympathiser avec une quelconque secte philosophique à la manière de Jamblique. Celui-ci, en effet, prévenu en faveur de Platon, concéda également à Aristote de ne pas avoir contredit Platon au sujet des Idées »), et Étienne d’Alexandrie [Ps. Philopon], d’autre part, Jamblique aurait soutenu qu’Aristote n’avait pas réfuté Platon à propos des Idées. Tandis que Proclus – si l’on en croit Philopon (De aetern. mundi, 31), faisant allusion au livre, perdu, par lequel Proclus réfutait les objections d’Aristote contre le Timée (mais Syrianus aurait fait de même avant Proclus, d’après le témoignage d’Asclepius de Tralle) – aurait, pour sa part, été convaincu qu’Aristote avait combattu et réfuté Platon également sur ce point.
Comme nous allons le voir (texte 2), Proclus parle des Péripatéticiens en général, mais il n’est pas possible d’exclure Aristote. Cela dit, il faut toutefois se hâter d’ajouter que, malgré leurs divergences, presque tous les Néoplatoniciens s’accordent à considérer comme leur tâche propre de défendre Platon contre les attaques d’Aristote et des Péripatéticiens, afin au moins d’éliminer les malentendus et les interprétations perverses que ceux-ci exploitent souvent pour opposer les deux philosophes. Autrement dit, les différentes positions prises tour à tour par l’un ou l’autre des Néoplatoniciens, ou mieux par l’un ou l’autre des courants scolastiques néoplatoniciens, tiennent à des nuances argumentatives. Elles cherchent davantage à démontrer la concordance entre Platon et Aristote qu’à viser l’objectif principal commandant n’importe quelle exégèse néoplatonicienne du texte d’Aristote : la faire, d’une façon institutionnelle, servir le plus possible à la lecture et à l’étude des textes platoniciens.
Si nous voulons comprendre l’esprit de certaines positions, aussi bien théoriques qu’historiques, adoptées par les Néoplatoniciens, il nous faut donc partir d’une distinction préliminaire entre, d’une part, l’attitude polémique de ceux qui tendent à souligner les divergences plus ou moins substantielles entre Platon et Aristote – donc s’efforcent de réfuter explicitement et sans équivoque les objections d’Aristote et des Péripatéticiens contre Platon – et, d’autre part, l’attitude critique (mais peu ou guère critique en apparence) de ceux qui cherchent surtout à minimiser la « puissance destructrice » des objections aristotéliciennes et péripatéticiennes, au point de ramener la position réelle d’Aristote à celle de Platon.
En d’autres termes, il s’agit ou bien de défendre Platon contre les contradictions ou absurdités présumées dont on veut le rendre coupable, ou bien d’interpréter d’une façon compatible avec la « vérité » platonicienne ses apparentes discordances avec ce qu’on suppose être la « vérité » aristotélicienne. Mais en aucun cas Aristote ne doit et ne peut l’emporter sur Platon, soit parce que sa critique de Platon n’atteint pas sa cible ou pousse à mal le comprendre, soit parce que le sens que l’on accorde à cette critique n’est pas celui qu’elle possède effectivement ou n’est pas le seul qu’elle puisse posséder.
L’exégète néoplatonicien, donc, peut obtenir le même résultat en suivant deux voies différentes : l’important est de montrer que l’opposition présumée d’Aristote à Platon peut être dépassée et que l’étude du texte d’Aristote peut servir à faciliter la compréhension du texte de Platon (pour atteindre ce but, on doit parfois sacrifier les anciens Académiciens, tenus pour être la cible des objections d’Aristote : en ce cas, ce sont les anciens disciples de Platon qui auront mal compris le maître commun). Tout cela signifie que n’importe quelle exégèse du texte aristotélicien (de n’importe quel texte aristotélicien) fait partie de l’exégèse plus générale du texte platonicien.
C’était là une des règles de l’enseignement néoplatonicien, donc un élément doctrinal commun à tous les Néoplatoniciens. On pourrait faire, peut-être, une exception pour Damascius, qui, on le sait, contestait souvent la légitimité de l’exégèse prédominante (à cette époque, celle de Proclus) des textes platoniciens et aristotéliciens. Mais il est temps d’entrer dans le vif du sujet.
Nous allons examiner six textes tirés respectivement l’un de Simplicius, quatre de Proclus, et un autre d’Ammonius ; après en avoir donné la traduction (la mienne, en l’absence d’indication contraire), j’en viendrai aux conséquences de mon interprétation. [introduction p. 175-177]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1057","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1057,"authors_free":[{"id":1605,"entry_id":1057,"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}},{"id":1606,"entry_id":1057,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":306,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Dixsaut, Monique","free_first_name":"Monique","free_last_name":"Dixsaut","norm_person":{"id":306,"first_name":"Monique","last_name":"Dixsaut","full_name":"Dixsaut, Monique","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114771979","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"La d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"Pour aborder le probl\u00e8me de la d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les N\u00e9oplatoniciens, il est n\u00e9cessaire d\u2019op\u00e9rer des distinctions \u00e0 la fois historiques et th\u00e9oriques ; il faut en effet tenir compte tant du d\u00e9veloppement chronologique de la pens\u00e9e n\u00e9oplatonicienne que des diff\u00e9rences pouvant exister d\u2019une \u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne \u00e0 l\u2019autre. Il semble, par exemple, que Jamblique et Proclus aient adopt\u00e9 des positions sensiblement divergentes sur le probl\u00e8me de savoir si Aristote avait attaqu\u00e9 la th\u00e9orie des Id\u00e9es dans sa formulation platonicienne ou dans la fausse interpr\u00e9tation que certains Platoniciens en avaient donn\u00e9e.\r\nD\u2019apr\u00e8s ce que nous disent David [Elias], d\u2019une part :\r\n\u0394\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f38\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2\r\n(\u00ab L\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te ne doit pas sympathiser avec une quelconque secte philosophique \u00e0 la mani\u00e8re de Jamblique. Celui-ci, en effet, pr\u00e9venu en faveur de Platon, conc\u00e9da \u00e9galement \u00e0 Aristote de ne pas avoir contredit Platon au sujet des Id\u00e9es \u00bb), et \u00c9tienne d\u2019Alexandrie [Ps. Philopon], d\u2019autre part, Jamblique aurait soutenu qu\u2019Aristote n\u2019avait pas r\u00e9fut\u00e9 Platon \u00e0 propos des Id\u00e9es. Tandis que Proclus \u2013 si l\u2019on en croit Philopon (De aetern. mundi, 31), faisant allusion au livre, perdu, par lequel Proclus r\u00e9futait les objections d\u2019Aristote contre le Tim\u00e9e (mais Syrianus aurait fait de m\u00eame avant Proclus, d\u2019apr\u00e8s le t\u00e9moignage d\u2019Asclepius de Tralle) \u2013 aurait, pour sa part, \u00e9t\u00e9 convaincu qu\u2019Aristote avait combattu et r\u00e9fut\u00e9 Platon \u00e9galement sur ce point.\r\nComme nous allons le voir (texte 2), Proclus parle des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, mais il n\u2019est pas possible d\u2019exclure Aristote. Cela dit, il faut toutefois se h\u00e2ter d\u2019ajouter que, malgr\u00e9 leurs divergences, presque tous les N\u00e9oplatoniciens s\u2019accordent \u00e0 consid\u00e9rer comme leur t\u00e2che propre de d\u00e9fendre Platon contre les attaques d\u2019Aristote et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, afin au moins d\u2019\u00e9liminer les malentendus et les interpr\u00e9tations perverses que ceux-ci exploitent souvent pour opposer les deux philosophes. Autrement dit, les diff\u00e9rentes positions prises tour \u00e0 tour par l\u2019un ou l\u2019autre des N\u00e9oplatoniciens, ou mieux par l\u2019un ou l\u2019autre des courants scolastiques n\u00e9oplatoniciens, tiennent \u00e0 des nuances argumentatives. Elles cherchent davantage \u00e0 d\u00e9montrer la concordance entre Platon et Aristote qu\u2019\u00e0 viser l\u2019objectif principal commandant n\u2019importe quelle ex\u00e9g\u00e8se n\u00e9oplatonicienne du texte d\u2019Aristote : la faire, d\u2019une fa\u00e7on institutionnelle, servir le plus possible \u00e0 la lecture et \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des textes platoniciens.\r\nSi nous voulons comprendre l\u2019esprit de certaines positions, aussi bien th\u00e9oriques qu\u2019historiques, adopt\u00e9es par les N\u00e9oplatoniciens, il nous faut donc partir d\u2019une distinction pr\u00e9liminaire entre, d\u2019une part, l\u2019attitude pol\u00e9mique de ceux qui tendent \u00e0 souligner les divergences plus ou moins substantielles entre Platon et Aristote \u2013 donc s\u2019efforcent de r\u00e9futer explicitement et sans \u00e9quivoque les objections d\u2019Aristote et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens contre Platon \u2013 et, d\u2019autre part, l\u2019attitude critique (mais peu ou gu\u00e8re critique en apparence) de ceux qui cherchent surtout \u00e0 minimiser la \u00ab puissance destructrice \u00bb des objections aristot\u00e9liciennes et p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiennes, au point de ramener la position r\u00e9elle d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 celle de Platon.\r\nEn d\u2019autres termes, il s\u2019agit ou bien de d\u00e9fendre Platon contre les contradictions ou absurdit\u00e9s pr\u00e9sum\u00e9es dont on veut le rendre coupable, ou bien d\u2019interpr\u00e9ter d\u2019une fa\u00e7on compatible avec la \u00ab v\u00e9rit\u00e9 \u00bb platonicienne ses apparentes discordances avec ce qu\u2019on suppose \u00eatre la \u00ab v\u00e9rit\u00e9 \u00bb aristot\u00e9licienne. Mais en aucun cas Aristote ne doit et ne peut l\u2019emporter sur Platon, soit parce que sa critique de Platon n\u2019atteint pas sa cible ou pousse \u00e0 mal le comprendre, soit parce que le sens que l\u2019on accorde \u00e0 cette critique n\u2019est pas celui qu\u2019elle poss\u00e8de effectivement ou n\u2019est pas le seul qu\u2019elle puisse poss\u00e9der.\r\nL\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te n\u00e9oplatonicien, donc, peut obtenir le m\u00eame r\u00e9sultat en suivant deux voies diff\u00e9rentes : l\u2019important est de montrer que l\u2019opposition pr\u00e9sum\u00e9e d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 Platon peut \u00eatre d\u00e9pass\u00e9e et que l\u2019\u00e9tude du texte d\u2019Aristote peut servir \u00e0 faciliter la compr\u00e9hension du texte de Platon (pour atteindre ce but, on doit parfois sacrifier les anciens Acad\u00e9miciens, tenus pour \u00eatre la cible des objections d\u2019Aristote : en ce cas, ce sont les anciens disciples de Platon qui auront mal compris le ma\u00eetre commun). Tout cela signifie que n\u2019importe quelle ex\u00e9g\u00e8se du texte aristot\u00e9licien (de n\u2019importe quel texte aristot\u00e9licien) fait partie de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se plus g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du texte platonicien.\r\nC\u2019\u00e9tait l\u00e0 une des r\u00e8gles de l\u2019enseignement n\u00e9oplatonicien, donc un \u00e9l\u00e9ment doctrinal commun \u00e0 tous les N\u00e9oplatoniciens. On pourrait faire, peut-\u00eatre, une exception pour Damascius, qui, on le sait, contestait souvent la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se pr\u00e9dominante (\u00e0 cette \u00e9poque, celle de Proclus) des textes platoniciens et aristot\u00e9liciens. Mais il est temps d\u2019entrer dans le vif du sujet.\r\nNous allons examiner six textes tir\u00e9s respectivement l\u2019un de Simplicius, quatre de Proclus, et un autre d\u2019Ammonius ; apr\u00e8s en avoir donn\u00e9 la traduction (la mienne, en l\u2019absence d\u2019indication contraire), j\u2019en viendrai aux cons\u00e9quences de mon interpr\u00e9tation. [introduction p. 175-177]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LVbezb3omxhQNRC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":305,"full_name":"Romano, Francesco","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":306,"full_name":"Dixsaut, Monique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1057,"section_of":310,"pages":"175-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":310,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Contre Platon. Tome I: Le Platonisme D\u00e9voil\u00e9","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Dixsaut1993","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"Pourquoi, comment, devient-on antiplatonicien ? A l'\u00e9vidence, en s'opposant au platonisme, d'embl\u00e9e le probl\u00e8me se complique, car il n'est pas certain apr\u00e8s tout que Platon, si obstin\u00e9ment absent de ses propres dialogues, si d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9ment anonyme, ait \u00e9t\u00e9 platonicien. Comment s'opposer \u00e0 qui ne parle jamais en son nom, pourquoi r\u00e9futer une doctrine que son auteur n'a jamais pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e comme telle ni revendiqu\u00e9e comme sienne et dont le sens semble pouvoir \u00eatre librement \u00e9labor\u00e9 par les adversaires du moment et pour les besoins de leur cause ? En quoi le platonisme autorise-t-il ces attaques globales et parfois \u00e9trangement violentes ? Peut-\u00eatre est-ce parce que chaque \u00e9poque croit y d\u00e9celer ce qu'elle tient pour la forme extr\u00eame de la d\u00e9mesure et de l'orgueil philosophiques, indiquant du m\u00eame coup les probl\u00e8mes et les attitudes jug\u00e9s par elle tol\u00e9rables en philosophie. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9zfyHBZbSdr0Iyv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":310,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Tradition de la pens\u00e9e classique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens"]}

La fonction des prologues exégétiques dans la pensée pédagogique néoplatonicienne, 1998
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Dubois, Jean-Daniel (Ed.), Roussel, Bernard (Ed.)
Title La fonction des prologues exégétiques dans la pensée pédagogique néoplatonicienne
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1998
Published in Entrer en matière. Les prologues
Pages 209-245
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Dubois, Jean-Daniel , Roussel, Bernard
Translator(s)
La philosophie néoplatonicienne a développé une doctrine de  la  relation  pédagogique  entre  le  Maître  (image  visible  du  Bien)  et les  étudiants (âmes  imparfaites),  qui se fonde sur la définition même de la  philosophie  comme  « assimilation  à  Dieu  », et  qui  inscrit dans  une perspective  anagogique  la  pratique  de  l'exégèse  et  de  l'enseignement. Dans  un  tel  cadre, la question  du « prologue  » s*entend en  trois sens  1) la représentation de la philosophie comme unité organique assigne à la logique aristotélicienne un statut de « commencement », à titre de « partie instrumentale  »  ; et  le  traité  des  Catégories est,  à  l'intérieur de  cette « partie instrumentale », et au début du cursus néoplatonicien des études, le  « proème  » delà logique et de la philosophie tout entière ; 2) il existe d'autre part un véritable « genre littéraire » des introductions exégétiques, caractérisé  par  des  schémas  scolastiques  de  questions  préalables  ; et  l'organisation  du  cursus commence  par  l'emboîtement  de  plusieurs introductions : à la philosophie en général, à la philosophie d'Aristote, à la philosophie de Platon, à chaque œuvre particulière de Porphyre (Isagogè), d'Aristote et de Platon ; 3) enfin, dans le cadre de l'explication de chaque œuvre  singulière, les  prologues  exégétiques  (et  les  commentaires  eux-mêmes) peuvent comporter une description ou une légitimation du prologue de  l'œuvre  commentée  :  c'est  le  cas  pour  le  traité  aristotélicien des Catégories. L'application de critères  rhétoriques d'origine platonicienne conduit à s'interroger sur la fonction et la liaison organique de ce prologue de  l'œuvre commentée avec l'œuvre elle-même envisagée comme totalité organique. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"685","_score":null,"_source":{"id":685,"authors_free":[{"id":1016,"entry_id":685,"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":1017,"entry_id":685,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":188,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Dubois, Jean-Daniel","free_first_name":"Jean-Daniel","free_last_name":"Dubois","norm_person":{"id":188,"first_name":"Jean-Daniel ","last_name":"Dubois","full_name":"Dubois, Jean-Daniel ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/104137304X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1018,"entry_id":685,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":189,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Roussel, Bernard","free_first_name":"Bernard","free_last_name":"Roussel","norm_person":{"id":189,"first_name":"Bernard ","last_name":"Roussel","full_name":"Roussel, Bernard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032386932","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La fonction des prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques dans la pens\u00e9e p\u00e9dagogique n\u00e9oplatonicienne","main_title":{"title":"La fonction des prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques dans la pens\u00e9e p\u00e9dagogique n\u00e9oplatonicienne"},"abstract":"La philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne a d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 une doctrine de la relation p\u00e9dagogique entre le Ma\u00eetre (image visible du Bien) et les \u00e9tudiants (\u00e2mes imparfaites), qui se fonde sur la d\u00e9finition m\u00eame de la philosophie comme \u00ab assimilation \u00e0 Dieu \u00bb, et qui inscrit dans une perspective anagogique la pratique de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et de l'enseignement. Dans un tel cadre, la question du \u00ab prologue \u00bb s*entend en trois sens 1) la repr\u00e9sentation de la philosophie comme unit\u00e9 organique assigne \u00e0 la logique aristot\u00e9licienne un statut de \u00ab commencement \u00bb, \u00e0 titre de \u00ab partie instrumentale \u00bb ; et le trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories est, \u00e0 l'int\u00e9rieur de cette \u00ab partie instrumentale \u00bb, et au d\u00e9but du cursus n\u00e9oplatonicien des \u00e9tudes, le \u00ab pro\u00e8me \u00bb del\u00e0 logique et de la philosophie tout enti\u00e8re ; 2) il existe d'autre part un v\u00e9ritable \u00ab genre litt\u00e9raire \u00bb des introductions ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques, caract\u00e9ris\u00e9 par des sch\u00e9mas scolastiques de questions pr\u00e9alables ; et l'organisation du cursus commence par l'embo\u00eetement de plusieurs introductions : \u00e0 la philosophie en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, \u00e0 la philosophie d'Aristote, \u00e0 la philosophie de Platon, \u00e0 chaque \u0153uvre particuli\u00e8re de Porphyre (Isagog\u00e8), d'Aristote et de Platon ; 3) enfin, dans le cadre de l'explication de chaque \u0153uvre singuli\u00e8re, les prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques (et les commentaires eux-m\u00eames) peuvent comporter une description ou une l\u00e9gitimation du prologue de l'\u0153uvre comment\u00e9e : c'est le cas pour le trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories. L'application de crit\u00e8res rh\u00e9toriques d'origine platonicienne conduit \u00e0 s'interroger sur la fonction et la liaison organique de ce prologue de l'\u0153uvre comment\u00e9e avec l'\u0153uvre elle-m\u00eame envisag\u00e9e comme totalit\u00e9 organique. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qogll7IhtIDqqda","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":188,"full_name":"Dubois, Jean-Daniel ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":189,"full_name":"Roussel, Bernard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":685,"section_of":371,"pages":"209-245","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":371,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Entrer en mati\u00e8re. Les prologues","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Dubois1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1998","abstract":"Vingt-huit auteurs ont \u00e9tudi\u00e9 les pages introductives d'oeuvres philosophiques et th\u00e9ologiques de l'Antiquit\u00e9 et du Moyen Age, de Bibles et de commentaires, manuscrits et imprim\u00e9s, r\u00e9dig\u00e9s par des juifs et des chr\u00e9tiens jusqu'au XVIIe si\u00e8cle. Ils montrent comment ces pages d\u00e9finissent des \"orientations herm\u00e9neutiques\", des \"protocoles de lecture\" ou encore tissent des liens avec les lecteurs. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GzDhLGjpBoVziqc","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":371,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre d\u2019\u00c9tudes des Religions du Livre, Cerf","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La fonction des prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques dans la pens\u00e9e p\u00e9dagogique n\u00e9oplatonicienne"]}

La triade chaldaïque ἔρως, ἀλήθεια, πίστις: De Proclus à Simplicius, 2000
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Segonds, A. Ph. (Ed.), Steel, Carlos (Ed.), Mettraux, A. F. (Coll.) (Ed.), Luna, Concetta (Coll.) (Ed.)
Title La triade chaldaïque ἔρως, ἀλήθεια, πίστις: De Proclus à Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 2000
Published in Proclus et la théologie platonicienne. Actes du colloque international de Louvain (13 -16 mai 1998). En l'honneur de H.D. Saffrey et L.G. Westerink
Pages 459-489
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Segonds, A. Ph. , Steel, Carlos , Mettraux, A. F. (Coll.) , Luna, Concetta (Coll.)
Translator(s)
L'analyse  des  textes  montre  que  dans  l’œuvre  de  Simplicius s'établit  une  correspondance  ferme  entre  le  prologue  de  son Commentaire  à  la Physique et  la  prière  finale  du  Commentaire  au 
De  caelo.  Selon  l’ordre  néoplatonicien  de  lecture  des  traités d'Aristote,  la  Physique  précède  le  De caelo.  Ne  peut-on,  dans  ces conditions,  et  malgré  un  ordre  chronologique  de  composition  in­verse,  expliquer  par  une  raison  de  fond  -   c'est-à-dire  par  une sorte  de  continuité  intentionnelle  entre  les  deux  ouvrages  -  
l’absence  d’une  prière  à  la  fin  du  Commentaire  à  la  Physique,  en considérant  que  la  prière  finale  de  l'In De caelo  couronne  à  la  fois 
ces  deux  commentaires,  puisque  l'un  comme  l'autre  instruisent une polémique contre l'impiété  de Jean Philopon, et font  remonter l'exégète  -   et  avec  lui  ses  lecteurs  -   jusqu’à  une  forme d'union avec  le  corps  céleste  et  avec  le  Démiurge,  c’est-à-dire jusqu'à  une 
«  sympathie  » donatrice de félicité? Ainsi  se  trouve  atteint  le  telos  évoqué  dans  le  prologue  du Commentaire  aux  Catégories,  tandis  qu'un  fil  thématique  précis unit les trois Commentaires de Simplicius sur Aristote. [conclusion, p. 489]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"681","_score":null,"_source":{"id":681,"authors_free":[{"id":1009,"entry_id":681,"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":1010,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":196,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Segonds, A. Ph.","free_first_name":"A. Ph. ","free_last_name":"Segonds","norm_person":{"id":196,"first_name":"A. Ph. ","last_name":"Segonds","full_name":"Segonds, A. Ph.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031742743","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2039,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":2395,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":461,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mettraux, A. F. (Coll.)","free_first_name":"A. F.","free_last_name":"Mettraux","norm_person":{"id":461,"first_name":"A. F.","last_name":"Mettraux","full_name":"Mettraux, A. F. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2396,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":458,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Luna, Concetta (Coll.)","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}}],"entry_title":"La triade chalda\u00efque \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2: De Proclus \u00e0 Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La triade chalda\u00efque \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2: De Proclus \u00e0 Simplicius"},"abstract":"L'analyse des textes montre que dans l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius s'\u00e9tablit une correspondance ferme entre le prologue de son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique et la pri\u00e8re finale du Commentaire au \r\nDe caelo. Selon l\u2019ordre n\u00e9oplatonicien de lecture des trait\u00e9s d'Aristote, la Physique pr\u00e9c\u00e8de le De caelo. Ne peut-on, dans ces conditions, et malgr\u00e9 un ordre chronologique de composition in\u00adverse, expliquer par une raison de fond - c'est-\u00e0-dire par une sorte de continuit\u00e9 intentionnelle entre les deux ouvrages - \r\nl\u2019absence d\u2019une pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin du Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique, en consid\u00e9rant que la pri\u00e8re finale de l'In De caelo couronne \u00e0 la fois \r\nces deux commentaires, puisque l'un comme l'autre instruisent une pol\u00e9mique contre l'impi\u00e9t\u00e9 de Jean Philopon, et font remonter l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8te - et avec lui ses lecteurs - jusqu\u2019\u00e0 une forme d'union avec le corps c\u00e9leste et avec le D\u00e9miurge, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire jusqu'\u00e0 une \r\n\u00ab sympathie \u00bb donatrice de f\u00e9licit\u00e9? Ainsi se trouve atteint le telos \u00e9voqu\u00e9 dans le prologue du Commentaire aux Cat\u00e9gories, tandis qu'un fil th\u00e9matique pr\u00e9cis unit les trois Commentaires de Simplicius sur Aristote. [conclusion, p. 489]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Z6GulpIldCyTgq3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":196,"full_name":"Segonds, A. Ph.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":461,"full_name":"Mettraux, A. F. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":458,"full_name":"Luna, Concetta","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":681,"section_of":369,"pages":"459-489","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":369,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Proclus et la th\u00e9ologie platonicienne. Actes du colloque international de Louvain (13 -16 mai 1998). En l'honneur de H.D. Saffrey et L.G. Westerink","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Segonds2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"In his Platonic Theology, Proclus offers a systematic exposition of the theology of Plato. Integrating within the \u2018scienti-fic\u2019 framework of the Parmenides all the theological doctrines which are scattered throughout the Plato\u2019s dialogues, Proclus develops the Platonic doctrines on the One, the gods and the hierarchical procession of reality.\r\n\r\nThe present volume, which celebrates the completion of the critical edition of Proclus\u2019 Platonic Theology by H.-D. Saffrey and L.G. Westerink (+), contains thirty-one contributions by leading scholars in the field of Neoplatonic studies. They present their views on the organisation and principles of Proclus\u2019 theology, on the hermeneutics of Platonic dialogues, on the antecedents of this theological synthesis, and on its posterity, from Proclus\u2019 immediate successors through the Byzantine, Arabic and Latin Middle Ages.\r\n\r\nThis monumental volume, which is the result of three decades of dedicated scholarly research on the philosophy of Proclus, will stand for many years as an indispensable guide for all those interested in Neoplatonic studies. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SbKzMkxqkUtsN6U","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":369,"pubplace":"Leuven - Paris","publisher":"Leuven University Press - Paris Les Belles Lettres","series":"Ancient and medieval philosophy, Series 1","volume":"26","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La triade chalda\u00efque \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2: De Proclus \u00e0 Simplicius"]}

Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d’Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel, 1995
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Moreschini, Claudio (Ed.)
Title Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d’Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1995
Published in Esegesi, parafrasi e compilazione in età tardoantica: atti del terzo Convegno dell'Associazione di studi tardoantichi
Pages 175-185
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s) Moreschini, Claudio
Translator(s)
Dans mon livre Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin : Hiéroclès et Simplicius¹, j’ai expliqué d’une manière détaillée la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète dans l’enseignement néoplatonicien.

Il s’agissait de répondre à la question suivante : comment le néoplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du stoïcien Épictète, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la métripathie aristotélicienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l’argumentation développée que j’ai donnée dans mon livre et je me borne à en résumer ici les principaux résultats.

Les néoplatoniciens étaient persuadés qu’il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les études de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette manière purifié son âme, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C’est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (Élias) dans les introductions à leurs commentaires sur les Catégories d’Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualités requises du bon auditeur (ou étudiant)².

Mais pour cette formation morale pré-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Catégories l’expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif³, une instruction qui soit une catéchèse purement parénétique, sans démonstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius⁴, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l’œuvre d’Aristote, par laquelle commençaient les études philosophiques des néoplatoniciens.

Les traités d’Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de démonstrations, dont la compréhension présuppose la maîtrise de la méthode apodictique, que le débutant en philosophie ne possède pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les Éthiques d’Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction éthique préparatoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme écrite ou non écrite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens.

La dernière allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le célèbre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement été commenté par les néoplatoniciens Hiéroclès, Jamblique⁵ et Proclus⁶. David (Élias), pour sa part, nomme les parénèses d’Isocrate⁷, visant de toute évidence les discours À Démonicos et À Nicoclès.

Or, au début de son commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète⁸, Simplicius précise que le genre littéraire de cet ouvrage est celui des « courtes sentences » et des « maximes morales », et il ajoute que ce genre littéraire est analogue à celui que les pythagoriciens appellent préceptes (προστακτικαί).

Nous pouvons donc être assurés de tenir là le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d’Épictète. [introduction p. 51-52]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1498","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1498,"authors_free":[{"id":2598,"entry_id":1498,"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}},{"id":2599,"entry_id":1498,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":556,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Moreschini, Claudio","free_first_name":"Claudio","free_last_name":"Moreschini","norm_person":{"id":556,"first_name":"Claudio","last_name":"Moreschini","full_name":"Moreschini, Claudio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028672292","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d\u2019Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel","main_title":{"title":"Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d\u2019Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel"},"abstract":"Dans mon livre Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin : Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius\u00b9, j\u2019ai expliqu\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re d\u00e9taill\u00e9e la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te dans l\u2019enseignement n\u00e9oplatonicien.\r\n\r\nIl s\u2019agissait de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 la question suivante : comment le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du sto\u00efcien \u00c9pict\u00e8te, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la m\u00e9tripathie aristot\u00e9licienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l\u2019argumentation d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e que j\u2019ai donn\u00e9e dans mon livre et je me borne \u00e0 en r\u00e9sumer ici les principaux r\u00e9sultats.\r\n\r\nLes n\u00e9oplatoniciens \u00e9taient persuad\u00e9s qu\u2019il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les \u00e9tudes de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette mani\u00e8re purifi\u00e9 son \u00e2me, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C\u2019est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (\u00c9lias) dans les introductions \u00e0 leurs commentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualit\u00e9s requises du bon auditeur (ou \u00e9tudiant)\u00b2.\r\n\r\nMais pour cette formation morale pr\u00e9-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Cat\u00e9gories l\u2019expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif\u00b3, une instruction qui soit une cat\u00e9ch\u00e8se purement par\u00e9n\u00e9tique, sans d\u00e9monstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius\u2074, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote, par laquelle commen\u00e7aient les \u00e9tudes philosophiques des n\u00e9oplatoniciens.\r\n\r\nLes trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de d\u00e9monstrations, dont la compr\u00e9hension pr\u00e9suppose la ma\u00eetrise de la m\u00e9thode apodictique, que le d\u00e9butant en philosophie ne poss\u00e8de pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les \u00c9thiques d\u2019Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme \u00e9crite ou non \u00e9crite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens.\r\n\r\nLa derni\u00e8re allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement \u00e9t\u00e9 comment\u00e9 par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s, Jamblique\u2075 et Proclus\u2076. David (\u00c9lias), pour sa part, nomme les par\u00e9n\u00e8ses d\u2019Isocrate\u2077, visant de toute \u00e9vidence les discours \u00c0 D\u00e9monicos et \u00c0 Nicocl\u00e8s.\r\n\r\nOr, au d\u00e9but de son commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te\u2078, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que le genre litt\u00e9raire de cet ouvrage est celui des \u00ab courtes sentences \u00bb et des \u00ab maximes morales \u00bb, et il ajoute que ce genre litt\u00e9raire est analogue \u00e0 celui que les pythagoriciens appellent pr\u00e9ceptes (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af).\r\n\r\nNous pouvons donc \u00eatre assur\u00e9s de tenir l\u00e0 le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te. [introduction p. 51-52]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uXmnTeKsGQf7VkO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":556,"full_name":"Moreschini, Claudio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1498,"section_of":1497,"pages":"175-185","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1497,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"it","title":"Esegesi, parafrasi e compilazione in et\u00e0 tardoantica: atti del terzo Convegno dell'Associazione di studi tardoantichi","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Moreschini1995","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9TdVasyOFO7lHMY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1497,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"M. D'Auria","series":"Collectanea (D'Auria)","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d\u2019Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel"]}

Le début d’une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A/B de Théophraste, 1998
By: Laks, André, van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. (Ed.), Raalte, Marlein van (Ed.)
Title Le début d’une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A/B de Théophraste
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1998
Published in Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources
Pages 143-169
Categories no categories
Author(s) Laks, André
Editor(s) van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. , Raalte, Marlein van
Translator(s)
Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre de la Physique d’Aristote comporte trois mentions de Théophraste, dont une brève référence (142 FHS&G) et deux citations textuelles (143 et 144B). Nous possédons en outre une paraphrase de la seconde citation dans la partie correspondante du commentaire de Philopon (144A). Nous avons toutes les raisons de penser que ces quatre passages dérivent du premier livre de la Physique de Théophraste. Si 144A mentionne seulement le titre général de l’ouvrage de Théophraste (« dans son propre traité physique »), 144B précise : « au début de ses livres physiques ».

La citation de Théophraste, en 143, est introduite par la mention moins précise, mais en l’occurrence parfaitement adéquate (puisque l’extrait, comme nous le verrons dans un instant, suivait sans doute 144A/B) : « dans le premier livre de ses traités physiques ». Le contenu corrobore ces indications. 144A/B concerne en effet le paragraphe initial du traité d’Aristote (Physique, 184a10-16), qui assigne pour première tâche à la science physique de déterminer quels en sont les principes ; 142 et 143 portent sur la suite immédiate (184a16-b14), qui introduit la distinction entre « ce qui est plus connu pour nous » et « ce qui est plus connu par nature ».

Les éditeurs ont mis 142/143 en tête, sans doute parce que, énonçant des propositions méthodologiques sur le statut de l’enquête physique, ils peuvent sembler poser les préalables, alors que 144A/B mettent déjà en jeu des propositions physiques particulières. Mais ceci peut avoir été un effet de l’exégèse de Théophraste, fortement marquée, comme nous le verrons plus loin, par une tendance systématisante. À condition d’inverser l’ordre adopté par les éditeurs (c’est-à-dire d’admettre que le fragment cité dans 144B précédait dans l’original celui que rapporte 143), l’ensemble offre les linéaments d’un commentaire continu de la première page de la Physique d’Aristote.

L’analyse qui suit tente d’en restituer les traits saillants. [introduction p. 143-144]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"883","_score":null,"_source":{"id":883,"authors_free":[{"id":1298,"entry_id":883,"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}},{"id":1299,"entry_id":883,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1300,"entry_id":883,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":154,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","free_first_name":"Marlein van","free_last_name":"Raalte","norm_person":{"id":154,"first_name":"Marlein van","last_name":"Raalte","full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172515270","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le d\u00e9but d\u2019une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A\/B de Th\u00e9ophraste","main_title":{"title":"Le d\u00e9but d\u2019une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A\/B de Th\u00e9ophraste"},"abstract":"Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre de la Physique d\u2019Aristote comporte trois mentions de Th\u00e9ophraste, dont une br\u00e8ve r\u00e9f\u00e9rence (142 FHS&G) et deux citations textuelles (143 et 144B). Nous poss\u00e9dons en outre une paraphrase de la seconde citation dans la partie correspondante du commentaire de Philopon (144A). Nous avons toutes les raisons de penser que ces quatre passages d\u00e9rivent du premier livre de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste. Si 144A mentionne seulement le titre g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de l\u2019ouvrage de Th\u00e9ophraste (\u00ab dans son propre trait\u00e9 physique \u00bb), 144B pr\u00e9cise : \u00ab au d\u00e9but de ses livres physiques \u00bb.\r\n\r\nLa citation de Th\u00e9ophraste, en 143, est introduite par la mention moins pr\u00e9cise, mais en l\u2019occurrence parfaitement ad\u00e9quate (puisque l\u2019extrait, comme nous le verrons dans un instant, suivait sans doute 144A\/B) : \u00ab dans le premier livre de ses trait\u00e9s physiques \u00bb. Le contenu corrobore ces indications. 144A\/B concerne en effet le paragraphe initial du trait\u00e9 d\u2019Aristote (Physique, 184a10-16), qui assigne pour premi\u00e8re t\u00e2che \u00e0 la science physique de d\u00e9terminer quels en sont les principes ; 142 et 143 portent sur la suite imm\u00e9diate (184a16-b14), qui introduit la distinction entre \u00ab ce qui est plus connu pour nous \u00bb et \u00ab ce qui est plus connu par nature \u00bb.\r\n\r\nLes \u00e9diteurs ont mis 142\/143 en t\u00eate, sans doute parce que, \u00e9non\u00e7ant des propositions m\u00e9thodologiques sur le statut de l\u2019enqu\u00eate physique, ils peuvent sembler poser les pr\u00e9alables, alors que 144A\/B mettent d\u00e9j\u00e0 en jeu des propositions physiques particuli\u00e8res. Mais ceci peut avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 un effet de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Th\u00e9ophraste, fortement marqu\u00e9e, comme nous le verrons plus loin, par une tendance syst\u00e9matisante. \u00c0 condition d\u2019inverser l\u2019ordre adopt\u00e9 par les \u00e9diteurs (c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire d\u2019admettre que le fragment cit\u00e9 dans 144B pr\u00e9c\u00e9dait dans l\u2019original celui que rapporte 143), l\u2019ensemble offre les lin\u00e9aments d\u2019un commentaire continu de la premi\u00e8re page de la Physique d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nL\u2019analyse qui suit tente d\u2019en restituer les traits saillants. [introduction p. 143-144]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yDW08T1lG0G9q6B","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":154,"full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":883,"section_of":1298,"pages":"143-169","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le d\u00e9but d\u2019une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A\/B de Th\u00e9ophraste"]}

Le problème des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius, 1992
By: Bossier, Fernand, Hamesse, Jacqueline (Ed.)
Title Le problème des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1992
Published in Les problèmes posés par l'édition critique des textes anciens et médiévaux
Pages 361-397
Categories no categories
Author(s) Bossier, Fernand
Editor(s) Hamesse, Jacqueline
Translator(s)
Un des problèmes qui peuvent encombrer l’édition critique des commentaires anciens et médiévaux sur les grands traités qui ont fait autorité dans les écoles (traités d’Aristote, de Galien, de Ptolémée, etc.) concerne la manière dont les lemmes ou références au texte commenté doivent être présentés ; car bien qu’en règle générale on aperçoive assez vite si l’auteur a effectivement inséré des références pareilles, les informations concernant leur forme et leur texte sont plus d’une fois peu concordantes, voire très confuses.

La forme des lemmes peut varier pour la raison qu’en tête d’un commentaire on peut citer in extenso toute la section commentée ou recourir à un système de lemmes abrégés, dont les principaux types seront énumérés ci-après. Mais ce qu’il importe de remarquer avant tout, c’est qu’en raison même de leur fonction de référence, les lemmes doivent être bien distingués des commentaires eux-mêmes ; le commentateur, s’il est attentif, prendra soin de les souligner ou de les écrire en caractères un peu plus gros, ou il chargera son secrétaire ou son éditeur de les écrire en rouge.

Placés en tête des commentaires pour en faciliter l’étude et bien distingués de ceux-ci, les lemmes, par contrecoup, sont très exposés aux tentatives de remaniement et d’adaptation de la part des utilisateurs ultérieurs. Il peut paraître utile à un savant ou à un éditeur d’avoir ou de mettre sous les yeux le passage commenté tout entier, en remplaçant ou complétant les lemmes abrégés écrits par l’auteur, ou d’assurer au moins un usage plus facile et mieux organisé du commentaire, en ajoutant après les premiers mots du passage commenté, écrits par l’auteur, la formule jusqu’à, suivie des derniers mots de celui-ci. Inversement, les lemmes complets peuvent être abrégés par un copiste, par exemple si le savant qui a passé la commande possède déjà le traité commenté.

Ainsi donc, la forme des lemmes varie très souvent d’un manuscrit à l’autre, voire d’une partie à l’autre à l’intérieur d’un même manuscrit, et l’éditeur d’un commentaire devra se mettre à la recherche de la forme que l’auteur lui-même leur a donnée. Cette préoccupation de retrouver la forme primitive ne mérite pas d’être considérée comme une sorte de surenchère critique. Il se peut, en effet, que la question de la forme des lemmes soit intimement liée à une autre, bien plus importante, à savoir celle de la valeur des lemmes comme témoins indirects du texte commenté. Si l’étude critique révèle que les lemmes sous telle ou telle forme ont été refaits, on ne sera plus tenté de penser que leur texte reflète l’état du texte commenté à l’époque du commentateur, du moins pas dans les parties remaniées ou ajoutées ; seules les parties primitives seront jugées à même de nous informer sur le texte lu et cité par le commentateur, bien que là encore la facilité d’une adaptation ultérieure doive nous inciter à la prudence.

De toute évidence, l’étude des lemmes ne présente pas partout une pareille importance pour la critique textuelle du traité commenté, mais seulement dans les cas où le commentateur est reconnu à juste titre comme un témoin très précieux (par exemple les commentateurs Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Ammonius, Jean Philopon, Simplicius pour le texte d’Aristote) ou tout à fait privilégié du texte commenté. Mais même en dehors de cette perspective, l’étude des lemmes se révèle plus d’une fois très fructueuse : la recherche de la forme primitive peut nous instruire non pas seulement sur la méthode utilisée par le commentateur, mais encore sur la manière dont les commentaires ont été préparés et organisés pour en faciliter la lecture et la consultation, et de cette sorte, elle nous mène de temps à autre à des découvertes tout à fait inattendues.

Le but du présent article est de montrer comment une analyse minutieuse des lemmes latins du De caelo, contenus dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De caelo de Simplicius, nous a mis sur la voie de trois recensions du De caelo, dont deux étaient complètement inconnues auparavant. [introduction p. 361-362]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1076","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1076,"authors_free":[{"id":1630,"entry_id":1076,"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":1631,"entry_id":1076,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":13,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hamesse, Jacqueline ","free_first_name":"Jacqueline ","free_last_name":"Hamesse","norm_person":{"id":13,"first_name":"Jacqueline ","last_name":"Hamesse","full_name":"Hamesse, Jacqueline ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132262746","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le probl\u00e8me des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Le probl\u00e8me des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius"},"abstract":"Un des probl\u00e8mes qui peuvent encombrer l\u2019\u00e9dition critique des commentaires anciens et m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux sur les grands trait\u00e9s qui ont fait autorit\u00e9 dans les \u00e9coles (trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote, de Galien, de Ptol\u00e9m\u00e9e, etc.) concerne la mani\u00e8re dont les lemmes ou r\u00e9f\u00e9rences au texte comment\u00e9 doivent \u00eatre pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s ; car bien qu\u2019en r\u00e8gle g\u00e9n\u00e9rale on aper\u00e7oive assez vite si l\u2019auteur a effectivement ins\u00e9r\u00e9 des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences pareilles, les informations concernant leur forme et leur texte sont plus d\u2019une fois peu concordantes, voire tr\u00e8s confuses.\r\n\r\nLa forme des lemmes peut varier pour la raison qu\u2019en t\u00eate d\u2019un commentaire on peut citer in extenso toute la section comment\u00e9e ou recourir \u00e0 un syst\u00e8me de lemmes abr\u00e9g\u00e9s, dont les principaux types seront \u00e9num\u00e9r\u00e9s ci-apr\u00e8s. Mais ce qu\u2019il importe de remarquer avant tout, c\u2019est qu\u2019en raison m\u00eame de leur fonction de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence, les lemmes doivent \u00eatre bien distingu\u00e9s des commentaires eux-m\u00eames ; le commentateur, s\u2019il est attentif, prendra soin de les souligner ou de les \u00e9crire en caract\u00e8res un peu plus gros, ou il chargera son secr\u00e9taire ou son \u00e9diteur de les \u00e9crire en rouge.\r\n\r\nPlac\u00e9s en t\u00eate des commentaires pour en faciliter l\u2019\u00e9tude et bien distingu\u00e9s de ceux-ci, les lemmes, par contrecoup, sont tr\u00e8s expos\u00e9s aux tentatives de remaniement et d\u2019adaptation de la part des utilisateurs ult\u00e9rieurs. Il peut para\u00eetre utile \u00e0 un savant ou \u00e0 un \u00e9diteur d\u2019avoir ou de mettre sous les yeux le passage comment\u00e9 tout entier, en rempla\u00e7ant ou compl\u00e9tant les lemmes abr\u00e9g\u00e9s \u00e9crits par l\u2019auteur, ou d\u2019assurer au moins un usage plus facile et mieux organis\u00e9 du commentaire, en ajoutant apr\u00e8s les premiers mots du passage comment\u00e9, \u00e9crits par l\u2019auteur, la formule jusqu\u2019\u00e0, suivie des derniers mots de celui-ci. Inversement, les lemmes complets peuvent \u00eatre abr\u00e9g\u00e9s par un copiste, par exemple si le savant qui a pass\u00e9 la commande poss\u00e8de d\u00e9j\u00e0 le trait\u00e9 comment\u00e9.\r\n\r\nAinsi donc, la forme des lemmes varie tr\u00e8s souvent d\u2019un manuscrit \u00e0 l\u2019autre, voire d\u2019une partie \u00e0 l\u2019autre \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur d\u2019un m\u00eame manuscrit, et l\u2019\u00e9diteur d\u2019un commentaire devra se mettre \u00e0 la recherche de la forme que l\u2019auteur lui-m\u00eame leur a donn\u00e9e. Cette pr\u00e9occupation de retrouver la forme primitive ne m\u00e9rite pas d\u2019\u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme une sorte de surench\u00e8re critique. Il se peut, en effet, que la question de la forme des lemmes soit intimement li\u00e9e \u00e0 une autre, bien plus importante, \u00e0 savoir celle de la valeur des lemmes comme t\u00e9moins indirects du texte comment\u00e9. Si l\u2019\u00e9tude critique r\u00e9v\u00e8le que les lemmes sous telle ou telle forme ont \u00e9t\u00e9 refaits, on ne sera plus tent\u00e9 de penser que leur texte refl\u00e8te l\u2019\u00e9tat du texte comment\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque du commentateur, du moins pas dans les parties remani\u00e9es ou ajout\u00e9es ; seules les parties primitives seront jug\u00e9es \u00e0 m\u00eame de nous informer sur le texte lu et cit\u00e9 par le commentateur, bien que l\u00e0 encore la facilit\u00e9 d\u2019une adaptation ult\u00e9rieure doive nous inciter \u00e0 la prudence.\r\n\r\nDe toute \u00e9vidence, l\u2019\u00e9tude des lemmes ne pr\u00e9sente pas partout une pareille importance pour la critique textuelle du trait\u00e9 comment\u00e9, mais seulement dans les cas o\u00f9 le commentateur est reconnu \u00e0 juste titre comme un t\u00e9moin tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9cieux (par exemple les commentateurs Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Ammonius, Jean Philopon, Simplicius pour le texte d\u2019Aristote) ou tout \u00e0 fait privil\u00e9gi\u00e9 du texte comment\u00e9. Mais m\u00eame en dehors de cette perspective, l\u2019\u00e9tude des lemmes se r\u00e9v\u00e8le plus d\u2019une fois tr\u00e8s fructueuse : la recherche de la forme primitive peut nous instruire non pas seulement sur la m\u00e9thode utilis\u00e9e par le commentateur, mais encore sur la mani\u00e8re dont les commentaires ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9par\u00e9s et organis\u00e9s pour en faciliter la lecture et la consultation, et de cette sorte, elle nous m\u00e8ne de temps \u00e0 autre \u00e0 des d\u00e9couvertes tout \u00e0 fait inattendues.\r\n\r\nLe but du pr\u00e9sent article est de montrer comment une analyse minutieuse des lemmes latins du De caelo, contenus dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De caelo de Simplicius, nous a mis sur la voie de trois recensions du De caelo, dont deux \u00e9taient compl\u00e8tement inconnues auparavant. [introduction p. 361-362]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Db9PyA6a27u1SM5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":13,"full_name":"Hamesse, Jacqueline ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1076,"section_of":278,"pages":"361-397","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":278,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Les probl\u00e8mes pos\u00e9s par l'\u00e9dition critique des textes anciens et m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hamesse1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"La meilleure mani\u00e8re d'introduire aux probl\u00e8mes pos\u00e9s par l'\u00e9dition critique des textes anciens et m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux est de pr\u00e9senter une s\u00e9rie de cas concrets illustrant les difficult\u00e9s inh\u00e9rentes \u00e0 ce type de travail et la complexit\u00e9 des \u00e9l\u00e9ments \u00e0 prendre en consid\u00e9ration. Les aspects \u00e0 traiter sont multiples. L'accent a \u00e9t\u00e9 mis sur la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de tenir compte du contexte historique qui a conditionn\u00e9 la transmission de l'oeuvre et des facteurs mat\u00e9riels qui sont intervenus dans la tradition. Appel a \u00e9t\u00e9 fait \u00e0 diff\u00e9rents sp\u00e9cialistes ayant rencontr\u00e9 des probl\u00e8mes sp\u00e9cifiques dans leurs travaux. Le volume contient des articles qui pr\u00e9sentent l'exp\u00e9rience de chercheurs qualifi\u00e9s dans des domaines pr\u00e9cis et qui mettent l'accent sur le point de vue m\u00e9thodologique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1sNOomXw6buIlXz","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":278,"pubplace":"Louvain-la-Neuve","publisher":"Institute d'Etudes M\u00e9di\u00e9vales","series":"Textes, \u00c9tudes, Congr\u00e8s","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le probl\u00e8me des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius"]}

Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius, 1998
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise (Ed.), Lozachmeur, Hélène (Ed.)
Title Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1998
Published in Proche-Orient Ancien. Temps vécu, temps pensé
Pages 223-234
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise , Lozachmeur, Hélène
Translator(s)
Cette enquête rapide a fait apparaître cinq thèses fondamentales : 1. toute mesure confère l’unité à ce qu’elle rassemble, et le fait participer, à son niveau, de l’Un lui-même ; 2. le temps, image de l’éternité (Platon), est l ’une des « mesures rassemblantes » qui sauvent le sensible du désastre ontologique ; il est, plus proprement, la « mesure de l’extension (paratasis) de l’être » ; 3. le temps est une quantité continue (Aristote), et il est mesuré par des mesures naturelles intrinsèques ; 4. la catégorie du pote, qui est distincte du temps et de la quantité, est définie par une pure relation non convertible au temps lui-même, ou à ses « mesures naturelles » ; 5. ainsi est pensée la datation d ’un événement historique (comme la bataille de Salamine), tandis que la taxis agissante du temps ordonne, conjoint et distingue les événements historiques (la guerre de Troie et la guerre du Péloponnèse ne se confondent pas). [conclusion, p. 234]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"677","_score":null,"_source":{"id":677,"authors_free":[{"id":997,"entry_id":677,"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":998,"entry_id":677,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":190,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet, Fran\u00e7oise","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7oise","free_last_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet","norm_person":{"id":190,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7oise ","last_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet","full_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet, Fran\u00e7oise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138558841","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":999,"entry_id":677,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":191,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lozachmeur, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","free_first_name":"H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","free_last_name":"Lozachmeur","norm_person":{"id":191,"first_name":"H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","last_name":"Lozachmeur","full_name":"Lozachmeur, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius"},"abstract":"Cette enqu\u00eate rapide a fait appara\u00eetre cinq th\u00e8ses fondamentales : 1. toute mesure conf\u00e8re l\u2019unit\u00e9 \u00e0 ce qu\u2019elle rassemble, et le fait participer, \u00e0 son niveau, de l\u2019Un lui-m\u00eame ; 2. le temps, image de l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 (Platon), est l \u2019une des \u00ab mesures rassemblantes \u00bb qui sauvent le sensible du d\u00e9sastre ontologique ; il est, plus proprement, la \u00ab mesure de l\u2019extension (paratasis) de l\u2019\u00eatre \u00bb ; 3. le temps est une quantit\u00e9 continue (Aristote), et il est mesur\u00e9 par des mesures naturelles intrins\u00e8ques ; 4. la cat\u00e9gorie du pote, qui est distincte du temps et de la quantit\u00e9, est d\u00e9finie par une pure relation non convertible au temps lui-m\u00eame, ou \u00e0 ses \u00ab mesures naturelles \u00bb ; 5. ainsi est pens\u00e9e la datation d \u2019un \u00e9v\u00e9nement historique (comme la bataille de Salamine), tandis que la taxis agissante du temps ordonne, conjoint et distingue les \u00e9v\u00e9nements historiques (la guerre de Troie et la guerre du P\u00e9loponn\u00e8se ne se confondent pas). [conclusion, p. 234]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Bux3xGV4iDU4pJh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":190,"full_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet, Fran\u00e7oise ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":191,"full_name":"Lozachmeur, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":677,"section_of":366,"pages":"223-234","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":366,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Proche-Orient Ancien. Temps v\u00e9cu, temps pens\u00e9","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Briquel-Chatonnet1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1998","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5BD9RWhwMU84oxi","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":366,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Maisonneuve","series":"Antiquit\u00e9s s\u00e9mitiques","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius"]}

Les analyses de l'énoncé: catégories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs néoplatoniciens, 1999
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Diebler, Stéphane (Ed.), Rashed, Marwan (Ed.), Büttgen, Philippe (Ed.)
Title Les analyses de l'énoncé: catégories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs néoplatoniciens
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1999
Published in Théories de la phrase et de la proposition, de Platon à Averroès
Pages 209-248
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Diebler, Stéphane , Rashed, Marwan , Büttgen, Philippe
Translator(s)
Avec les exégètes néoplatoniciens d’Aristote, à la fin de l'Antiquité, l'intérêt constant porté au discours par les philosophes grecs – depuis les sophistes, Platon, Aristote, les stoïciens – trouve son point d’achèvement, tandis que s’affirme nettement la différence des deux points de vue – grammatical et logique – que l’on peut porter sur l’énoncé. Cet effort de distinction caractérise la littérature des commentaires sur l’Organon, qui correspond, on le sait, au début du cours de philosophie néoplatonicienne dans l’Antiquité tardive.

L’étude de l’Organon commençait, après des enseignements propédeutiques et une lecture de l’Isagoge de Porphyre, par l’exégèse du traité des Catégories, que domine une description fine du "but", du skopos. Les catégories sont les éléments constitutifs de l’énoncé déclaratif (logos apophantikós), seule espèce du logos à être vraie ou fausse, et qui est lui-même la base du syllogisme démonstratif, lequel est le point culminant ou la clé de voûte de la logique, puisque la démonstration est l’instrument de discernement du vrai et du faux dans le domaine de la théorie, et du bien et du mal dans le domaine de la pratique. Les catégories sont les termes “qui ne se disent pas en liaison”, c’est-à-dire qui ne sont pas pris dans une syntaxe attributive et qui se contentent encore de “signifier”. La doctrine des catégories est, en son fond, sémantique et ressortit à la logique. Mais elle reflète une division (diairesis) des étants en dix classes suprêmes, les “genres généralissimes”.

Lorsqu’il commente le chapitre 2 des Catégories, Simplicius explique que la division en dix catégories s’inscrit elle-même dans une séquence dyade-tétrade-décade. Aristote, affirme-t-il, commence avec raison par donner une quadruple division des étants, puisque la tétrade est plus fondamentale que la décade, et que cette quadripartition se ramène elle-même à une bipartition :

"[...] puisque, nous l'avons vu, le but (skopos) porte sur les mots simples et génériques, qui signifient les réalités simples et génériques, avant de les diviser (diairesis) en le plus grand nombre de termes possible – j'entends par là la division en dix catégories, au-delà desquelles on ne pouvait en trouver d’autres –, Aristote a jugé bon de commencer par une division minimale, car on ne pouvait rassembler les mots simples en un plus petit nombre de groupes : en effet cette façon de procéder était scientifique (epistêmonikón) parce que la décade est comprise dans la tétrade ; en effet en faisant la somme d’un, deux, trois et quatre, nous obtenons le nombre dix ; et la tétrade, à rebours, Aristote l’a rassemblée dans la dyade. Les quatre termes dont nous parlons sont : l’essence, l’accident, l’universel et le particulier. Les étants en effet se divisent en deux (ta onta diaireitai dikhôs) [...]".

Ces deux termes sont l’essence (qui correspond à la première catégorie) et l’accident (sous le chef duquel se regroupent les neuf autres catégories). À la fin de l’explication de ce lemme, Simplicius précise que “la division en quatre termes n’est pas une division au sens propre, mais plutôt un dénombrement (anarithmêsis)”.

L'analyse du logos apophantikós conduit donc le philosophe à distinguer entre dix “mots simples”, les dix catégories énumérées par Aristote, et qui constituent, aux yeux des exégètes antiques, une liste exhaustive en droit et close : la substance ou l’essence (ousia, ti esti), la quantité (poson), la qualité (poion), la relation (pros ti), l’agir et le pâtir (poiein, paschein), le "quand” et le “où” (pote, pou), la situation et l’avoir (keisthai, echein).

Cette analyse ne coïncide en rien avec celle des grammairiens qui, à la fin de l'Antiquité, enseignent de manière fixe la doctrine des huit “parties du discours” (merê tou logou), progressivement élaborée comme le fruit de ce qu’ils nomment le merismos (“partition”). Ces huit “parties du discours” sont, dans l'ordre : le nom, le verbe, le participe, l’article, le pronom, la préposition, l'adverbe et la conjonction.

Soucieux, pour plusieurs raisons, de distinguer leur recherche de l’activité grammaticale, les commentateurs néoplatoniciens d’Aristote ont soigneusement distingué entre ces deux modes d'analyse du logos (discours, phrase, proposition, énoncé) : la division des catégories, qui est fondée sur la diairesis des étants en dix genres – elle relève de la logique et participe de l’ontologie – et la merismos grammaticale des éléments du langage en huit classes (les huit “parties du discours”).

La lecture des Catégories conduisait ces exégètes à rencontrer certaines difficultés. Tout d'abord, il y avait un débat sur la nature même des "catégories" (sont-elles des mots ? des notions ? des réalités ?). Des adversaires stoïciens d’Aristote (Athénodore et Cornutus) contestaient la complétude de la liste, insuffisante selon eux, puisqu’ils voyaient en elle le résultat d’une division des mots. Le débat sur l’origine grammaticale des catégories, ou sur le lien de cette doctrine avec l’objet propre et la discipline de la grammaire, illustré à l’époque moderne par les travaux d’auteurs aussi différents que Trendelenburg ou E. Benveniste, était déjà un débat antique.

Autre question. Le début du De interpretatione présente un exposé sur le nom (onoma) et le verbe (rhêma), qui sont à la fois des termes logiques (sujet et prédicat) et les deux premières “parties du discours” selon la liste canonique des grammairiens. Comment rendre compte de la rencontre, mais aussi de la différence, entre le point de vue du philosophe lecteur de l’Organon et le point de vue du grammairien ? Comment expliquer la succession – dans la perspective de l’“ordre de lecture” néoplatonicien – des Catégories et du De interpretatione ?

La tâche de tout commentateur néoplatonicien était donc d'expliquer à la fois comment distinguer entre l’analyse grammaticale d'une phrase et l’analyse logique d’un énoncé véridique, et quelle est l’articulation de la doctrine des Catégories et de la doctrine du De interpretatione.

Il faut pour cela rappeler quels étaient les “buts” assignés par les exégètes à ces deux traités, qui étaient lus l’un à la suite de l’autre dans “l’ordre de lecture” des œuvres d’Aristote tel qu’il était pratiqué à la fin de l’Antiquité. [introduction p. 209-212]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"680","_score":null,"_source":{"id":680,"authors_free":[{"id":1005,"entry_id":680,"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":1006,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":192,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","free_first_name":"St\u00e9phane","free_last_name":"Diebler","norm_person":{"id":192,"first_name":"St\u00e9phane ","last_name":" Diebler","full_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135973635","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1007,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1008,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":193,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"B\u00fcttgen","norm_person":{"id":193,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":" B\u00fcttgen","full_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071071025","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"Avec les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes n\u00e9oplatoniciens d\u2019Aristote, \u00e0 la fin de l'Antiquit\u00e9, l'int\u00e9r\u00eat constant port\u00e9 au discours par les philosophes grecs \u2013 depuis les sophistes, Platon, Aristote, les sto\u00efciens \u2013 trouve son point d\u2019ach\u00e8vement, tandis que s\u2019affirme nettement la diff\u00e9rence des deux points de vue \u2013 grammatical et logique \u2013 que l\u2019on peut porter sur l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9. Cet effort de distinction caract\u00e9rise la litt\u00e9rature des commentaires sur l\u2019Organon, qui correspond, on le sait, au d\u00e9but du cours de philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive.\r\n\r\nL\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019Organon commen\u00e7ait, apr\u00e8s des enseignements prop\u00e9deutiques et une lecture de l\u2019Isagoge de Porphyre, par l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se du trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories, que domine une description fine du \"but\", du skopos. Les cat\u00e9gories sont les \u00e9l\u00e9ments constitutifs de l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9 d\u00e9claratif (logos apophantik\u00f3s), seule esp\u00e8ce du logos \u00e0 \u00eatre vraie ou fausse, et qui est lui-m\u00eame la base du syllogisme d\u00e9monstratif, lequel est le point culminant ou la cl\u00e9 de vo\u00fbte de la logique, puisque la d\u00e9monstration est l\u2019instrument de discernement du vrai et du faux dans le domaine de la th\u00e9orie, et du bien et du mal dans le domaine de la pratique. Les cat\u00e9gories sont les termes \u201cqui ne se disent pas en liaison\u201d, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire qui ne sont pas pris dans une syntaxe attributive et qui se contentent encore de \u201csignifier\u201d. La doctrine des cat\u00e9gories est, en son fond, s\u00e9mantique et ressortit \u00e0 la logique. Mais elle refl\u00e8te une division (diairesis) des \u00e9tants en dix classes supr\u00eames, les \u201cgenres g\u00e9n\u00e9ralissimes\u201d.\r\n\r\nLorsqu\u2019il commente le chapitre 2 des Cat\u00e9gories, Simplicius explique que la division en dix cat\u00e9gories s\u2019inscrit elle-m\u00eame dans une s\u00e9quence dyade-t\u00e9trade-d\u00e9cade. Aristote, affirme-t-il, commence avec raison par donner une quadruple division des \u00e9tants, puisque la t\u00e9trade est plus fondamentale que la d\u00e9cade, et que cette quadripartition se ram\u00e8ne elle-m\u00eame \u00e0 une bipartition :\r\n\r\n\"[...] puisque, nous l'avons vu, le but (skopos) porte sur les mots simples et g\u00e9n\u00e9riques, qui signifient les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s simples et g\u00e9n\u00e9riques, avant de les diviser (diairesis) en le plus grand nombre de termes possible \u2013 j'entends par l\u00e0 la division en dix cat\u00e9gories, au-del\u00e0 desquelles on ne pouvait en trouver d\u2019autres \u2013, Aristote a jug\u00e9 bon de commencer par une division minimale, car on ne pouvait rassembler les mots simples en un plus petit nombre de groupes : en effet cette fa\u00e7on de proc\u00e9der \u00e9tait scientifique (epist\u00eamonik\u00f3n) parce que la d\u00e9cade est comprise dans la t\u00e9trade ; en effet en faisant la somme d\u2019un, deux, trois et quatre, nous obtenons le nombre dix ; et la t\u00e9trade, \u00e0 rebours, Aristote l\u2019a rassembl\u00e9e dans la dyade. Les quatre termes dont nous parlons sont : l\u2019essence, l\u2019accident, l\u2019universel et le particulier. Les \u00e9tants en effet se divisent en deux (ta onta diaireitai dikh\u00f4s) [...]\".\r\n\r\nCes deux termes sont l\u2019essence (qui correspond \u00e0 la premi\u00e8re cat\u00e9gorie) et l\u2019accident (sous le chef duquel se regroupent les neuf autres cat\u00e9gories). \u00c0 la fin de l\u2019explication de ce lemme, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que \u201cla division en quatre termes n\u2019est pas une division au sens propre, mais plut\u00f4t un d\u00e9nombrement (anarithm\u00easis)\u201d.\r\n\r\nL'analyse du logos apophantik\u00f3s conduit donc le philosophe \u00e0 distinguer entre dix \u201cmots simples\u201d, les dix cat\u00e9gories \u00e9num\u00e9r\u00e9es par Aristote, et qui constituent, aux yeux des ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes antiques, une liste exhaustive en droit et close : la substance ou l\u2019essence (ousia, ti esti), la quantit\u00e9 (poson), la qualit\u00e9 (poion), la relation (pros ti), l\u2019agir et le p\u00e2tir (poiein, paschein), le \"quand\u201d et le \u201co\u00f9\u201d (pote, pou), la situation et l\u2019avoir (keisthai, echein).\r\n\r\nCette analyse ne co\u00efncide en rien avec celle des grammairiens qui, \u00e0 la fin de l'Antiquit\u00e9, enseignent de mani\u00e8re fixe la doctrine des huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d (mer\u00ea tou logou), progressivement \u00e9labor\u00e9e comme le fruit de ce qu\u2019ils nomment le merismos (\u201cpartition\u201d). Ces huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d sont, dans l'ordre : le nom, le verbe, le participe, l\u2019article, le pronom, la pr\u00e9position, l'adverbe et la conjonction.\r\n\r\nSoucieux, pour plusieurs raisons, de distinguer leur recherche de l\u2019activit\u00e9 grammaticale, les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens d\u2019Aristote ont soigneusement distingu\u00e9 entre ces deux modes d'analyse du logos (discours, phrase, proposition, \u00e9nonc\u00e9) : la division des cat\u00e9gories, qui est fond\u00e9e sur la diairesis des \u00e9tants en dix genres \u2013 elle rel\u00e8ve de la logique et participe de l\u2019ontologie \u2013 et la merismos grammaticale des \u00e9l\u00e9ments du langage en huit classes (les huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d).\r\n\r\nLa lecture des Cat\u00e9gories conduisait ces ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes \u00e0 rencontrer certaines difficult\u00e9s. Tout d'abord, il y avait un d\u00e9bat sur la nature m\u00eame des \"cat\u00e9gories\" (sont-elles des mots ? des notions ? des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ?). Des adversaires sto\u00efciens d\u2019Aristote (Ath\u00e9nodore et Cornutus) contestaient la compl\u00e9tude de la liste, insuffisante selon eux, puisqu\u2019ils voyaient en elle le r\u00e9sultat d\u2019une division des mots. Le d\u00e9bat sur l\u2019origine grammaticale des cat\u00e9gories, ou sur le lien de cette doctrine avec l\u2019objet propre et la discipline de la grammaire, illustr\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque moderne par les travaux d\u2019auteurs aussi diff\u00e9rents que Trendelenburg ou E. Benveniste, \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 un d\u00e9bat antique.\r\n\r\nAutre question. Le d\u00e9but du De interpretatione pr\u00e9sente un expos\u00e9 sur le nom (onoma) et le verbe (rh\u00eama), qui sont \u00e0 la fois des termes logiques (sujet et pr\u00e9dicat) et les deux premi\u00e8res \u201cparties du discours\u201d selon la liste canonique des grammairiens. Comment rendre compte de la rencontre, mais aussi de la diff\u00e9rence, entre le point de vue du philosophe lecteur de l\u2019Organon et le point de vue du grammairien ? Comment expliquer la succession \u2013 dans la perspective de l\u2019\u201cordre de lecture\u201d n\u00e9oplatonicien \u2013 des Cat\u00e9gories et du De interpretatione ?\r\n\r\nLa t\u00e2che de tout commentateur n\u00e9oplatonicien \u00e9tait donc d'expliquer \u00e0 la fois comment distinguer entre l\u2019analyse grammaticale d'une phrase et l\u2019analyse logique d\u2019un \u00e9nonc\u00e9 v\u00e9ridique, et quelle est l\u2019articulation de la doctrine des Cat\u00e9gories et de la doctrine du De interpretatione.\r\n\r\nIl faut pour cela rappeler quels \u00e9taient les \u201cbuts\u201d assign\u00e9s par les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes \u00e0 ces deux trait\u00e9s, qui \u00e9taient lus l\u2019un \u00e0 la suite de l\u2019autre dans \u201cl\u2019ordre de lecture\u201d des \u0153uvres d\u2019Aristote tel qu\u2019il \u00e9tait pratiqu\u00e9 \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. [introduction p. 209-212]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bzuFZeua3rVa1TS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":192,"full_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":193,"full_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":680,"section_of":363,"pages":"209-248","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":363,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Th\u00e9ories de la phrase et de la proposition, de Platon \u00e0 Averro\u00e8s","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Diebler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Les th\u00e9ories de la phrase et de la proposition de l'Antiquit\u00e9 au Moyen \u00c2ge n'avaient jusqu'\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent jamais fait l'objet d'une \u00e9tude d'ensemble. On trouvera dans cet ouvrage, outre de nombreux travaux substantiels sur Platon et Aristote, des contributions novatrices sur la tradition sto\u00efcienne, ainsi que sur les aristot\u00e9lismes grec, syriaque, arabe et latin. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ui6DfE48AHsbm24","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":363,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"]}

Les catégories aristotéliciennes ΠΟΤE et ΠΟΥ d’après le commentaire de Simplicius. Méthode d’exégèse et aspects doctrinaux, 2000
By: Hoffmann, Philippe, Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile (Ed.)
Title Les catégories aristotéliciennes ΠΟΤE et ΠΟΥ d’après le commentaire de Simplicius. Méthode d’exégèse et aspects doctrinaux
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 2000
Published in Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999
Pages 355-376
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s) Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile
Translator(s)
Simplicius aligns himself fundamentally with Porphyry and Jamblichus, preserving the tradition of responding to Plotinus’s aporias on the Categories. He also reveals trends in the Peripatetic commentaries that Plotinus was reacting to. Simplicius demonstrates the specificity of the categories ΠΟΤE and ΠΟΥ, using Jamblichus's definition of neo-Platonic skopos, which relies on a unity of meaning to establish the unity of a category corresponding to the unity of a genus. Despite being influenced by Jamblichus, Simplicius ultimately follows a philosophical orientation that aligns him with his master Damascius. [conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"679","_score":null,"_source":{"id":679,"authors_free":[{"id":1002,"entry_id":679,"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":1003,"entry_id":679,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}}],"entry_title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E et \u03a0\u039f\u03a5 d\u2019apr\u00e8s le commentaire de Simplicius. M\u00e9thode d\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et aspects doctrinaux","main_title":{"title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E et \u03a0\u039f\u03a5 d\u2019apr\u00e8s le commentaire de Simplicius. M\u00e9thode d\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et aspects doctrinaux"},"abstract":"Simplicius aligns himself fundamentally with Porphyry and Jamblichus, preserving the tradition of responding to Plotinus\u2019s aporias on the Categories. He also reveals trends in the Peripatetic commentaries that Plotinus was reacting to. Simplicius demonstrates the specificity of the categories \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E and \u03a0\u039f\u03a5, using Jamblichus's definition of neo-Platonic skopos, which relies on a unity of meaning to establish the unity of a category corresponding to the unity of a genus. Despite being influenced by Jamblichus, Simplicius ultimately follows a philosophical orientation that aligns him with his master Damascius. [conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tGxagcX1ONlDUSI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":679,"section_of":269,"pages":"355-376","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":269,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet-Caz\u00e92000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"Une bonne partie de la litterature universelle est une litterature de commentaire. Cette constatation s'applique particulierement a la litterature antique et medievale, fortement ancree dans la tradition grace aux institutions scolaires. Situes en fait au croisement de la tradition et de l'innovation, les textes exegetiques s'attachent d'abod a comprendre et a expliquer la pensee des maitres qui font autorite, mais souvent ils essaient aussi de la depasser, si bien que la demarche du commentaire peut aller de l'exegese la plus litterale a l'interpretation la plus allegorisante, de l'explication la plus traditionnelle au commentaire le plus neuf. L'objectif de ce recueil est de cerner sous tous ses aspects, dans toutes ses composantes et toutes ses problematiques, la realite du commentaire depuis sa fabrication materielle jusqu'a l'elabotration de ses contenus speculatifs, dans des aires culturelles multiples: mondes grec, latin, hebraique, arabe indien et a des epoques differentes: hellenistique, Empire romain, Moyen Age et Renaissance. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RdY8RrIpT0hwHi3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":269,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E et \u03a0\u039f\u03a5 d\u2019apr\u00e8s le commentaire de Simplicius. M\u00e9thode d\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et aspects doctrinaux"]}

Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d’Aristote, 2000
By: Dalimier, Catherine, Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile (Ed.)
Title Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d’Aristote
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 2000
Published in Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999
Pages 377-386
Categories no categories
Author(s) Dalimier, Catherine
Editor(s) Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile
Translator(s)
Cette étude vise à souligner – si nous n’en étions pas encore persuadés – toute la partialité de commentateurs qui se présentent pourtant comme les dépositaires soigneux d’une tradition. Elle s’applique aux pages apparemment les plus neutres du long Commentaire de Simplicius au Traité sur le ciel d’Aristote, qui utilise et discute de nombreux commentaires grecs antérieurs. Il saute aux yeux que certains développements polémiques de ces commentateurs sont théologiquement motivés, par exemple leurs développements sur l’existence du cinquième élément et ceux qui concernent l’origine de l’univers ; mais, d’une façon plus radicale, leurs enjeux et leur stratégie m’apparaissent au niveau le plus plat de leur discours, dans les pages apparemment impersonnelles où ils reformulent les raisonnements élaborés par Aristote.

Cette reformulation syllogistique (RS), suivant les préceptes donnés dans les ouvrages logiques d’Aristote, fait passer des raisonnements exprimés en langage naturel dans un langage et une disposition canoniques qui mettent en valeur les prémisses explicites ou implicites et isolent la conclusion ; le tout est articulé par des conjonctions et des formules modales qui ne sont pas toujours identiques à celles d’Aristote, ni même présentes dans son texte. Dans le Commentaire au Traité sur le ciel, le caractère répétitif, fastidieux même de ces reformulations, accentué par la structure en abîme de ce traité particulier, la reprise de thèses d’un livre à l’autre, et la circularité de certains raisonnements, peut tromper le lecteur. Gardons-nous pourtant de n’y voir qu’une démonstration scolaire de virtuosité technique. Modifications et ajouts sont beaucoup plus que des effets de variatio à valeur didactique : ils nous confirment les présupposés théologiques et épistémiques du commentateur, présupposés particulièrement importants, s’agissant de la science difficile à classer qu’était l’astronomie dans l’Antiquité. [introduction p. 377-378]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1288","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1288,"authors_free":[{"id":1877,"entry_id":1288,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":61,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","free_first_name":"Catherine","free_last_name":"Dalimier","norm_person":{"id":61,"first_name":"Catherine","last_name":"Dalimier","full_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2337,"entry_id":1288,"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}}],"entry_title":"Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Cette \u00e9tude vise \u00e0 souligner \u2013 si nous n\u2019en \u00e9tions pas encore persuad\u00e9s \u2013 toute la partialit\u00e9 de commentateurs qui se pr\u00e9sentent pourtant comme les d\u00e9positaires soigneux d\u2019une tradition. Elle s\u2019applique aux pages apparemment les plus neutres du long Commentaire de Simplicius au Trait\u00e9 sur le ciel d\u2019Aristote, qui utilise et discute de nombreux commentaires grecs ant\u00e9rieurs. Il saute aux yeux que certains d\u00e9veloppements pol\u00e9miques de ces commentateurs sont th\u00e9ologiquement motiv\u00e9s, par exemple leurs d\u00e9veloppements sur l\u2019existence du cinqui\u00e8me \u00e9l\u00e9ment et ceux qui concernent l\u2019origine de l\u2019univers ; mais, d\u2019une fa\u00e7on plus radicale, leurs enjeux et leur strat\u00e9gie m\u2019apparaissent au niveau le plus plat de leur discours, dans les pages apparemment impersonnelles o\u00f9 ils reformulent les raisonnements \u00e9labor\u00e9s par Aristote.\r\n\r\nCette reformulation syllogistique (RS), suivant les pr\u00e9ceptes donn\u00e9s dans les ouvrages logiques d\u2019Aristote, fait passer des raisonnements exprim\u00e9s en langage naturel dans un langage et une disposition canoniques qui mettent en valeur les pr\u00e9misses explicites ou implicites et isolent la conclusion ; le tout est articul\u00e9 par des conjonctions et des formules modales qui ne sont pas toujours identiques \u00e0 celles d\u2019Aristote, ni m\u00eame pr\u00e9sentes dans son texte. Dans le Commentaire au Trait\u00e9 sur le ciel, le caract\u00e8re r\u00e9p\u00e9titif, fastidieux m\u00eame de ces reformulations, accentu\u00e9 par la structure en ab\u00eeme de ce trait\u00e9 particulier, la reprise de th\u00e8ses d\u2019un livre \u00e0 l\u2019autre, et la circularit\u00e9 de certains raisonnements, peut tromper le lecteur. Gardons-nous pourtant de n\u2019y voir qu\u2019une d\u00e9monstration scolaire de virtuosit\u00e9 technique. Modifications et ajouts sont beaucoup plus que des effets de variatio \u00e0 valeur didactique : ils nous confirment les pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s th\u00e9ologiques et \u00e9pist\u00e9miques du commentateur, pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s particuli\u00e8rement importants, s\u2019agissant de la science difficile \u00e0 classer qu\u2019\u00e9tait l\u2019astronomie dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. [introduction p. 377-378]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cQxTAlCRsoikXrH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":61,"full_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1288,"section_of":269,"pages":"377-386","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":269,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet-Caz\u00e92000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"Une bonne partie de la litterature universelle est une litterature de commentaire. Cette constatation s'applique particulierement a la litterature antique et medievale, fortement ancree dans la tradition grace aux institutions scolaires. Situes en fait au croisement de la tradition et de l'innovation, les textes exegetiques s'attachent d'abod a comprendre et a expliquer la pensee des maitres qui font autorite, mais souvent ils essaient aussi de la depasser, si bien que la demarche du commentaire peut aller de l'exegese la plus litterale a l'interpretation la plus allegorisante, de l'explication la plus traditionnelle au commentaire le plus neuf. L'objectif de ce recueil est de cerner sous tous ses aspects, dans toutes ses composantes et toutes ses problematiques, la realite du commentaire depuis sa fabrication materielle jusqu'a l'elabotration de ses contenus speculatifs, dans des aires culturelles multiples: mondes grec, latin, hebraique, arabe indien et a des epoques differentes: hellenistique, Empire romain, Moyen Age et Renaissance. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RdY8RrIpT0hwHi3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":269,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1288,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oriens-Occidens","volume":"2","issue":"","pages":"77-94"}},"sort":["Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d\u2019Aristote"]}

Metacommentary, 1992
By: Barnes, Jonathan, Annas, Julia (Ed.)
Title Metacommentary
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1992
Published in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Pages 267-281
Categories no categories
Author(s) Barnes, Jonathan
Editor(s) Annas, Julia
Translator(s)
Simplicius is in the scholarly news; the Neoplatonists are making a comeback; and the Greek commentaries on Aristotle are submitting to renewed scholarly scrutiny and enjoying some little publicity. Students of Greek philosophy have always referred to Simplicius and his fellows; but they have usually read a page here and a paragraph there, and their primary interest in the works has been in their value as sources for earlier thought (for the Presocratics, for the Stoics). This approach to a text has its dangers; and it is an unqualified good that Simplicius’ works are now being studied hard for themselves and as wholes. The French metacommentary may be regarded, and should be welcomed, as a part of this enterprise. But I am, I suspect, not alone in hoping that the next nine fascicles may prove a touch more sprightly and a touch more lithe. [conclusion p. 280-281]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"646","_score":null,"_source":{"id":646,"authors_free":[{"id":924,"entry_id":646,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":925,"entry_id":646,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":415,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Annas, Julia","free_first_name":"Julia","free_last_name":"Annas","norm_person":{"id":415,"first_name":"Julia","last_name":"Annas","full_name":"Annas, Julia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/112065120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Metacommentary","main_title":{"title":"Metacommentary"},"abstract":"Simplicius is in the scholarly news; the Neoplatonists are making a comeback; and the Greek commentaries on Aristotle are submitting to renewed scholarly scrutiny and enjoying some little publicity. Students of Greek philosophy have always referred to Simplicius and his fellows; but they have usually read a page here and a paragraph there, and their primary interest in the works has been in their value as sources for earlier thought (for the Presocratics, for the Stoics). This approach to a text has its dangers; and it is an unqualified good that Simplicius\u2019 works are now being studied hard for themselves and as wholes. The French metacommentary may be regarded, and should be welcomed, as a part of this enterprise. But I am, I suspect, not alone in hoping that the next nine fascicles may prove a touch more sprightly and a touch more lithe. [conclusion p. 280-281]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FBuj9EwgXQZ5fXT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":415,"full_name":"Annas, Julia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":646,"section_of":285,"pages":"267-281","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":285,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Annas1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy is an annual publication which includes original articles on a wide range of topics in ancient philosophy, and review articles of major books. In this supplementary volume, a number of renowned scholars of Plato reflect upon their interpretative methods. Topics covered include the use of ancient authorities in interpreting Plato's dialogues, Plato's literary and rhetorical style, his arguments and characters, and his use of the dialogue form. The collection is not intended as a comprehensive survey of methodological approaches; rather it offers a number of different perspectives and clearly articulated interpretations by leading scholars in the field. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dS81MCQI85uHYdS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":285,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"X","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Metacommentary"]}

Nous pathêtikos in later Greek philosophy, 1991
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Robinson, Howard (Ed.)
Title Nous pathêtikos in later Greek philosophy
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1991
Published in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition
Pages 191-205
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard
Translator(s)
In 1911  H.  Kurfess  obtained  a  doctorate  from  the  University  of 
Tübingen with a dissertation on the history of the interpretation of nous 
poietikos and  nous pathetikos} Notoriously the expression  nous poietikos 
never occurs in the text of Aristotle, but its derivation from De mim. 
430*11-12 is an easy step, and when philosophers and commentators 
subsequently discuss it, we know what it is that they are talking about, 
even  if its  nature  and  status  remained,  and  remain,  controversial. 
Similarly nouspathetikos, or rather ho pathetikos nous, occurs only once in 
the  pages  of Aristotle,  but appears often, if less  frequently  than  nous 
poietikos,  in  the  texts  of his  successors  and  interpreters.  In  its  case, 
however,  though  the  expression  occurs  in  Aristotle’s  De anima,  its 
reference is unclear. To aggravate matters,  nous pathetikos quite often 
appears in his successors in contexts which seem to have nothing to do 
with the intellect. Yet while nous poietikos has generated an enormous 
literature  from  the  ancient  world  up  until  today,  the  phrase  nous 
pathetikos  has  received  nothing like the attention of its partner. This 
paper will examine some of its uses in both commentators and Neo- 
platonist  philosophers  in  the  hope of explaining its  appearance and 
clarifying its meaning. [Introduction, p. 191]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"894","_score":null,"_source":{"id":894,"authors_free":[{"id":1317,"entry_id":894,"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":1319,"entry_id":894,"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":1320,"entry_id":894,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Nous path\u00eatikos in later Greek philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Nous path\u00eatikos in later Greek philosophy"},"abstract":"In 1911 H. Kurfess obtained a doctorate from the University of \r\nT\u00fcbingen with a dissertation on the history of the interpretation of nous \r\npoietikos and nous pathetikos} Notoriously the expression nous poietikos \r\nnever occurs in the text of Aristotle, but its derivation from De mim. \r\n430*11-12 is an easy step, and when philosophers and commentators \r\nsubsequently discuss it, we know what it is that they are talking about, \r\neven if its nature and status remained, and remain, controversial. \r\nSimilarly nouspathetikos, or rather ho pathetikos nous, occurs only once in \r\nthe pages of Aristotle, but appears often, if less frequently than nous \r\npoietikos, in the texts of his successors and interpreters. In its case, \r\nhowever, though the expression occurs in Aristotle\u2019s De anima, its \r\nreference is unclear. To aggravate matters, nous pathetikos quite often \r\nappears in his successors in contexts which seem to have nothing to do \r\nwith the intellect. Yet while nous poietikos has generated an enormous \r\nliterature from the ancient world up until today, the phrase nous \r\npathetikos has received nothing like the attention of its partner. This \r\npaper will examine some of its uses in both commentators and Neo- \r\nplatonist philosophers in the hope of explaining its appearance and \r\nclarifying its meaning. [Introduction, p. 191]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Di0rd034eeOOHeY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":894,"section_of":354,"pages":"191-205","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Nous path\u00eatikos in later Greek philosophy"]}

Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3, 1991
By: Sheppard, Anne D., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Robinson, Howard (Ed.)
Title Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1991
Published in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition
Pages 165-173
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sheppard, Anne D.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard
Translator(s)
Aristotle’s treatment of phantasia in De anima 3.3 is both suggestive and tantalizing: suggestive because Aristotle seems to be trying to describe a capacity of the mind that cannot be identified either with sense-perception or with rational thought—a capacity which, if it is not the same as what we call "imagination," at least has much in common with it. It is tantalizing because the chapter flits from one point to another and is difficult to interpret as a consistent whole. There have been several recent attempts to make sense of the chapter and relate it to Aristotle’s other remarks about phantasia elsewhere. I shall briefly discuss three of these, which all make some use of modern discussions of imagination. In all three cases, the way they interpret Aristotle’s position is influenced by the account of imagination they themselves favor.

It used to be taken for granted that imagination involves having mental images, but this assumption was among the many challenged in the works of Wittgenstein and in Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind. It is now more fashionable to analyze propositions of the form "I imagine that P" than to inquire into hypothetical pictures in the mind. Accordingly, some current interpreters of Aristotle claim that he is interested in the logic of the verb phainesthai, or in a power that interprets the data of perception, rather than in mental images.

For example, Malcolm Schofield claims that Aristotle is concerned with the verb phainesthai and the sense in which it expresses a non-committal attitude toward the veridical character of sensory or quasi-sensory experiences. According to Schofield, Aristotle is concerned with "non-paradigmatic sensory experiences"—phenomena that make one say cautiously phainetai ("It looks like an X"). Mental imagery is only one type of such experience and is not Aristotle’s main concern. Martha Nussbaum also emphasizes the connection with the verb phainesthai and explicitly attacks the view that mental images are central to either Aristotelian phantasia or our notion of imagination. Nussbaum claims that Aristotle has a very general interest in how things appear to living creatures. She examines Aristotle’s account of the role of phantasia in animal movement and its relationship to aisthesis and argues that, for Aristotle, aisthesis is simply the passive reception of sense-impressions, while the role of phantasia is to interpret such impressions.

More recently, Deborah Modrak has argued for an interpretation of Aristotelian phantasia that once again makes mental images important. She argues against Nussbaum’s interpretation of aisthesis as purely passive and describes phantasia as "the awareness of a sensory content under conditions that are not conducive to veridical perception." Such awareness, she argues, can perfectly well take the form of a mental image.

My concern here is not so much to adjudicate among these rival modern interpretations of Aristotle as to inquire what light the Neoplatonist commentators on the De anima throw on the issues raised. It might be thought that this is a futile enterprise, given the very different presuppositions with which the ancient commentators approached Aristotle. Henry Blumenthal has demonstrated in a number of articles that these commentators read Aristotle through Platonizing spectacles and that their interpretation of his psychology is colored by their Platonist assumptions. Nevertheless, if we examine the discussions of De anima 3.3 by the Neoplatonists, some interesting light is cast on the question of whether phantasia involves mental images.

In this paper, I shall confine myself to the two Neoplatonist commentaries on the De anima—those attributed to Simplicius and Philoponus. (Themistius, who was not a Neoplatonist, would require separate discussion.) Both commentaries raise problems of authorship, although these do not significantly affect the present inquiry. F. Bossier and C. Steel have argued that the commentary ascribed to Simplicius is not by him but by his contemporary Priscianus Lydus. Whether this is correct or not, the commentary is a product of sixth-century Athenian Neoplatonism. Book 3 of the Greek version of Philoponus’ commentary has been much more conclusively demonstrated to be by the later Alexandrian commentator Stephanus. Part of a Latin translation of Philoponus’ own work on De anima 3 survives, but his comments on 3.3 are not preserved. Those I shall be discussing are by Stephanus. (Where it is possible to compare the two commentators, the views of Stephanus are sometimes quite close to those of Philoponus, so it is likely that Philoponus’ views on 3.3 were not very different from those we find in Stephanus.) [introduction p. 165-167]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1021","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1021,"authors_free":[{"id":1537,"entry_id":1021,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1538,"entry_id":1021,"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":1539,"entry_id":1021,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3","main_title":{"title":"Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3"},"abstract":"Aristotle\u2019s treatment of phantasia in De anima 3.3 is both suggestive and tantalizing: suggestive because Aristotle seems to be trying to describe a capacity of the mind that cannot be identified either with sense-perception or with rational thought\u2014a capacity which, if it is not the same as what we call \"imagination,\" at least has much in common with it. It is tantalizing because the chapter flits from one point to another and is difficult to interpret as a consistent whole. There have been several recent attempts to make sense of the chapter and relate it to Aristotle\u2019s other remarks about phantasia elsewhere. I shall briefly discuss three of these, which all make some use of modern discussions of imagination. In all three cases, the way they interpret Aristotle\u2019s position is influenced by the account of imagination they themselves favor.\r\n\r\nIt used to be taken for granted that imagination involves having mental images, but this assumption was among the many challenged in the works of Wittgenstein and in Gilbert Ryle\u2019s The Concept of Mind. It is now more fashionable to analyze propositions of the form \"I imagine that P\" than to inquire into hypothetical pictures in the mind. Accordingly, some current interpreters of Aristotle claim that he is interested in the logic of the verb phainesthai, or in a power that interprets the data of perception, rather than in mental images.\r\n\r\nFor example, Malcolm Schofield claims that Aristotle is concerned with the verb phainesthai and the sense in which it expresses a non-committal attitude toward the veridical character of sensory or quasi-sensory experiences. According to Schofield, Aristotle is concerned with \"non-paradigmatic sensory experiences\"\u2014phenomena that make one say cautiously phainetai (\"It looks like an X\"). Mental imagery is only one type of such experience and is not Aristotle\u2019s main concern. Martha Nussbaum also emphasizes the connection with the verb phainesthai and explicitly attacks the view that mental images are central to either Aristotelian phantasia or our notion of imagination. Nussbaum claims that Aristotle has a very general interest in how things appear to living creatures. She examines Aristotle\u2019s account of the role of phantasia in animal movement and its relationship to aisthesis and argues that, for Aristotle, aisthesis is simply the passive reception of sense-impressions, while the role of phantasia is to interpret such impressions.\r\n\r\nMore recently, Deborah Modrak has argued for an interpretation of Aristotelian phantasia that once again makes mental images important. She argues against Nussbaum\u2019s interpretation of aisthesis as purely passive and describes phantasia as \"the awareness of a sensory content under conditions that are not conducive to veridical perception.\" Such awareness, she argues, can perfectly well take the form of a mental image.\r\n\r\nMy concern here is not so much to adjudicate among these rival modern interpretations of Aristotle as to inquire what light the Neoplatonist commentators on the De anima throw on the issues raised. It might be thought that this is a futile enterprise, given the very different presuppositions with which the ancient commentators approached Aristotle. Henry Blumenthal has demonstrated in a number of articles that these commentators read Aristotle through Platonizing spectacles and that their interpretation of his psychology is colored by their Platonist assumptions. Nevertheless, if we examine the discussions of De anima 3.3 by the Neoplatonists, some interesting light is cast on the question of whether phantasia involves mental images.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I shall confine myself to the two Neoplatonist commentaries on the De anima\u2014those attributed to Simplicius and Philoponus. (Themistius, who was not a Neoplatonist, would require separate discussion.) Both commentaries raise problems of authorship, although these do not significantly affect the present inquiry. F. Bossier and C. Steel have argued that the commentary ascribed to Simplicius is not by him but by his contemporary Priscianus Lydus. Whether this is correct or not, the commentary is a product of sixth-century Athenian Neoplatonism. Book 3 of the Greek version of Philoponus\u2019 commentary has been much more conclusively demonstrated to be by the later Alexandrian commentator Stephanus. Part of a Latin translation of Philoponus\u2019 own work on De anima 3 survives, but his comments on 3.3 are not preserved. Those I shall be discussing are by Stephanus. (Where it is possible to compare the two commentators, the views of Stephanus are sometimes quite close to those of Philoponus, so it is likely that Philoponus\u2019 views on 3.3 were not very different from those we find in Stephanus.) [introduction p. 165-167]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lzX0JUImw1D2csY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1021,"section_of":354,"pages":"165-173","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3"]}

Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan, 1999
By: Fazzo, Silvia, Blackwell, Constance (Ed.), Kusukawa, Sachiko (Ed.)
Title Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1999
Published in Philosophy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Conversations with Aristotle
Pages 48-75
Categories no categories
Author(s) Fazzo, Silvia
Editor(s) Blackwell, Constance , Kusukawa, Sachiko
Translator(s)
My aim in this  paper  is to discuss some examples of the  problems  Renaissance 
scholars encountered in this regard [i.e. he great advantage of having Greek texts  available in print]. In this first section, I will be concerned with 
a few sixteenth-century scholars and the close attention which they paid to the 
first Greek printed edition of the Quaestiones of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [p. 49]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"551","_score":null,"_source":{"id":551,"authors_free":[{"id":775,"entry_id":551,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":77,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","free_first_name":"Silvia","free_last_name":"Fazzo","norm_person":{"id":77,"first_name":"Silvia","last_name":"Fazzo","full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2098,"entry_id":551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":78,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blackwell, Constance","free_first_name":"Constance","free_last_name":"Blackwell","norm_person":{"id":78,"first_name":"Constance","last_name":"Blackwell","full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2099,"entry_id":551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":79,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kusukawa, Sachiko","free_first_name":"Sachiko","free_last_name":"Kusukawa","norm_person":{"id":79,"first_name":"Sachiko","last_name":"Kusukawa","full_name":"Kusukawa, Sachiko","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158263708","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan","main_title":{"title":"Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan"},"abstract":"My aim in this paper is to discuss some examples of the problems Renaissance \r\nscholars encountered in this regard [i.e. he great advantage of having Greek texts available in print]. In this first section, I will be concerned with \r\na few sixteenth-century scholars and the close attention which they paid to the \r\nfirst Greek printed edition of the Quaestiones of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [p. 49]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tTVeJQfmUSW2VyM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":78,"full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":79,"full_name":"Kusukawa, Sachiko","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":551,"section_of":261,"pages":"48-75","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":261,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Conversations with Aristotle","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blackwell\/Kusukawa1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"This volume offers an important re-evaluation of early modern philosophy. It takes issue with the received notion of a \u2019revolution\u2019 in philosophical thought in the 17th-century, making the case for treating the 16th and 17th centuries together. Taking up Charles Schmitt\u2019s formulation of the many \u2019Aristotelianisms\u2019 of the period, the papers bring out the variety and richness of the approaches to Aristotle, rather than treating his as a homogeneous system of thought. Based on much new research, they provide case studies of how philosophers used, developed, and reacted to the framework of Aristotelian logic, categories and distinctions, and demonstrate that Aristotelianism possessed both the flexibility and the dynamism to exert a continuing impact - even among such noted \u2019anti-Aristotelians\u2019 as Descartes and Hobbes. This constant engagement can indeed be termed \u2019conversations with Aristotle\u2019.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/In5fPTWQezWnPei","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":261,"pubplace":"Aldershot \u2013 Hants, U.K. \u2013 Brookfield, Vt.","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan"]}

Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof, 1997
By: Morrison, Donald R., Keßler, Eckhard (Ed.), Di Liscia, Daniel A. (Ed.), Methuen, Charlotte (Ed.)
Title Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1997
Published in Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition
Pages 1-22
Categories no categories
Author(s) Morrison, Donald R.
Editor(s) Keßler, Eckhard , Di Liscia, Daniel A. , Methuen, Charlotte
Translator(s)
In this paper I shall concentrate on a small but 
crucial episode in the development of one significant issue:  the method by 
which  the physicist acquires knowledge of the principles  of physical 
things. n his  commentary on  the Physics, the sixth-century Neoplatonist 
philosopher Simplicius puts forward sign-inference as a general method 
for acquiring first principles in physics:  “Clearly, the grasp (gnosis) of the 
principles [of physical things] is through necessary signs (tekmeriodes) 
rather than apodeictic (apodeiktike)."... [p. 1]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"834","_score":null,"_source":{"id":834,"authors_free":[{"id":1238,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":266,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Morrison, Donald R.","free_first_name":"Donald R.","free_last_name":"Morisson","norm_person":{"id":266,"first_name":"Donald R.","last_name":"Morrison","full_name":"Morrison, Donald R.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/14341285X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2116,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":267,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","free_first_name":"Eckhard","free_last_name":"Ke\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":267,"first_name":"Eckhard","last_name":"Ke\u00dfler","full_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117756431","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2117,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":268,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","free_first_name":"Daniel A.","free_last_name":"Di Liscia","norm_person":{"id":268,"first_name":"Daniel A.","last_name":"Di Liscia","full_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140744282","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2118,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":269,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","free_first_name":"Charlotte","free_last_name":"Methuen","norm_person":{"id":269,"first_name":"Charlotte","last_name":"Methuen","full_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137191812","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall concentrate on a small but \r\ncrucial episode in the development of one significant issue: the method by \r\nwhich the physicist acquires knowledge of the principles of physical \r\nthings. n his commentary on the Physics, the sixth-century Neoplatonist \r\nphilosopher Simplicius puts forward sign-inference as a general method \r\nfor acquiring first principles in physics: \u201cClearly, the grasp (gnosis) of the \r\nprinciples [of physical things] is through necessary signs (tekmeriodes) \r\nrather than apodeictic (apodeiktike).\"... [p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zVO0hPY4wM83hSQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":266,"full_name":"Morrison, Donald R.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":267,"full_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":268,"full_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":269,"full_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":834,"section_of":298,"pages":"1-22","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Liscia1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The volume results from a seminar sponsored by the \u2019Foundation for Intellectual History\u2019 at the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenb\u00fcttel, in 1992. Starting with the theory of regressus as displayed in its most developed form by William Wallace, these papers enter the vast field of the Renaissance discussion on method as such in its historical and systematical context. This is confined neither to the notion of method in the strict sense, nor to the Renaissance in its exact historical limits, nor yet to the Aristotelian tradition as a well defined philosophical school, but requires a new scholarly approach. Thus - besides Galileo, Zabarella and their circles, which are regarded as being crucial for the \u2019emergence of modern science\u2019 in the end of the 16th century - the contributors deal with the ancient and medieval origins as well as with the early modern continuity of the Renaissance concepts of method and with \u2019non-regressive\u2019 methodologies in the various approaches of Renaissance natural philosophy, including the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zVO0hPY4wM83hSQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":298,"pubplace":"Hampshire - Brookfield","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof"]}

Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature, 1998
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de, Raalte, Marlein van (Ed.), van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. (Ed.)
Title Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1998
Published in Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources
Pages 171-189
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s) Raalte, Marlein van , van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.
Translator(s)
In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle’s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things.

Both Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle—namely, “all physical things have principles.” Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things.

Unlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9–28) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus’ commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be.

This leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus’ insertion (144A 9–28) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument.

In this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1297","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1297,"authors_free":[{"id":1890,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Haas, Frans A. J. de","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"Haas, de","norm_person":{"id":153,"first_name":"Frans A. J.","last_name":"de Haas","full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128837020","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1988,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":154,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","free_first_name":"Marlein","free_last_name":"Raalte, van","norm_person":{"id":154,"first_name":"Marlein van","last_name":"Raalte","full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172515270","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1989,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature"},"abstract":"In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things.\r\n\r\nBoth Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle\u2014namely, \u201call physical things have principles.\u201d Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things.\r\n\r\nUnlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9\u201328) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus\u2019 commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be.\r\n\r\nThis leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus\u2019 insertion (144A 9\u201328) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5LsO2XY3SoVzgrW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":154,"full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1297,"section_of":1298,"pages":"171-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature"]}

Physikai doxai and Problēmata physika from Aristotle to Aëtius (and Beyond), 1992
By: Mansfeld, Jaap, Fortenbaugh, William W. (Ed.), Gutas, Dimitri (Ed.)
Title Physikai doxai and Problēmata physika from Aristotle to Aëtius (and Beyond)
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1992
Published in Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings
Pages 63-111
Categories no categories
Author(s) Mansfeld, Jaap
Editor(s) Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri
Translator(s)
In Theophrastus’  bibliography at Diog. Laërt. V 48 the title is given in the 
genitive, Φυσικών δοξών, which means that the intended nominative may have 
been  either  Φυσικών  δόξαι  (The  Tenets  of  the  Philosophers  of  Nature)  or 
Φυσικαί δόξαι (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy).  Scholars have been divided 
over this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are 
a number of noteworthy  exceptions.8  What we have here is  by  no  means a 
minor  problem,  because  the  precise  meaning  of  the  title  is  influential  in 
determining our impression of what the book was about.  In the present paper, 
I shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be Φυσικάι
δόξαι.  [p. 64]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1011","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1011,"authors_free":[{"id":1525,"entry_id":1011,"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":1526,"entry_id":1011,"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":1527,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)","main_title":{"title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)"},"abstract":"In Theophrastus\u2019 bibliography at Diog. La\u00ebrt. V 48 the title is given in the \r\ngenitive, \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ce\u03bd, which means that the intended nominative may have \r\nbeen either \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or \r\n\u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided \r\nover this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are \r\na number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a \r\nminor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in \r\ndetermining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, \r\nI shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b9\r\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9. [p. 64]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/va3DLcPD91tJsO7","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":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1011,"section_of":294,"pages":"63-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)"]}

Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition, 1997
By: Sedley, David N., Barnes, Jonathan (Ed.), Griffin, Miriam (Ed.)
Title Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1997
Published in Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome
Pages 110-129
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sedley, David N.
Editor(s) Barnes, Jonathan , Griffin, Miriam
Translator(s)
In this paper I shall be considering the emerge, or rather re-emerge, of Platonic commentary around the end of the Hellenistic age. That is the period which forms the essential background to our chief surviving specimens of the genre, the great fifth-century Platonic commentaries of Proclus. Specifically, I intend to examine why Platonic philosophy came to such a large extent to take the form of commentary, and how the resources of the commentary format were deployed for the task of establishing, preserving, and exploiting Plato's philosophical authority. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"647","_score":null,"_source":{"id":647,"authors_free":[{"id":926,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"David N.","free_last_name":"Sedley","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":927,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":928,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Griffin, Miriam","free_first_name":"Miriam","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall be considering the emerge, or rather re-emerge, of Platonic commentary around the end of the Hellenistic age. That is the period which forms the essential background to our chief surviving specimens of the genre, the great fifth-century Platonic commentaries of Proclus. Specifically, I intend to examine why Platonic philosophy came to such a large extent to take the form of commentary, and how the resources of the commentary format were deployed for the task of establishing, preserving, and exploiting Plato's philosophical authority. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KXHna6DA0dhoqno","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":647,"section_of":283,"pages":"110-129","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":283,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Barnes\/Griffin1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The mutual interaction of philosophy and Roman political and cultural life has aroused more and more interest in recent years among students of classical literature, Roman history, and ancient philosophy. In this volume, which gathers together some of the papers originally delivered at a series of seminars in the University of Oxford, scholars from all three disciplines explore the role of Platonism and Aristotelianism in Roman intellectual, cultural, and political life from the second century BC to the third century AD.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y4n6429uWaNLuD2","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":283,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition"]}

Platonism in late antiquity, 1993
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.)
Title Platonism in late antiquity
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1993
Published in Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism
Pages 1-27
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Translator(s)
The Platonism of late antiquity is, of course, what we now call Neoplatonism. That term is a modern one. ‘Neoplatonist’ and ‘Neoplatonic’ first appeared in English and French in the 1830s. All the philosophers whose work comes under this heading thought of themselves simply as Platonists, and the doctrine they were expounding as the Platonic philosophy. For Plotinus, the man normally thought of as the founder of this type of philosophy, all that he might have to say had been said before, though it might not have been set out explicitly, and could be found in the text of Plato (cf. V 1.8.10-14). For Proclus in the 5th century, after two hundred years of this kind of thinking, the same view of what he was doing still stood, as it did for Simplicius and Damascius into the 6th. Thus, Proclus, in the preface to his Platonic Theology, could write of his whole enterprise, and that of his Neoplatonic predecessors, as the understanding and exposition of the truths in Plato.

Given our modern views of Plato and Aristotle, as working philosophers whose views developed and whose answers to questions were not always the same, it is important to realize that their ancient interpreters looked at them as creators of fixed systems: though they might recognize that they did not always say the same things about the same questions, they saw such apparent inconsistencies as problems about the relation of disparate statements to an assumed single doctrine rather than about how one different doctrine might relate to another.

Before going on, I should perhaps offer some explanations and an apology. The apology is to those who know a great deal, or even a little, about Neoplatonism to whom some of what I shall say is basic common knowledge. The explanations are two.

First, that I am taking late antiquity to start in the 3rd century A.D., following an old Cambridge custom of taking ancient Greek philosophy to have ended with the death of Marcus Aurelius. The second is to say what I am going to do here. It relates to the first. When this view of the limits of classical antiquity still held, the study of Neoplatonism was regarded as rather disreputable, in the English-speaking world at least, and the few apparent exceptions—Elements of Theology, still one of the great achievements of Neoplatonic scholarship, and the first modern commentary on a Neoplatonic work—was seen not so much as evidence that there was here a rich field for new scholarly endeavor as an indication of that scholar’s eccentricity. The common attitude found its expression in the preface to the first volume of W.K.C. Guthrie’s History of Greek Philosophy, where he relegated Neoplatonism to the realms of the unphilosophical and the un-Greek:

"With Plotinus and his followers, as well as with their Christian contemporaries, there does seem to enter a new religious spirit which is not fundamentally Greek..."

That was in 1962.

What I want to do is to look at some of the characteristics of Neoplatonism and to see how the picture of this philosophy, or rather group of philosophies, has changed during the last three decades. I think most would now agree it is basically Greek. As to the importance of the religious and soteriological elements in it, which for many of its adherents was rather small in any case, that is arguable, and its significance depends on the extent to which one regards other forms of ancient philosophy as enquiries into how one should live the best life either in relation to one’s own society or to the gods which that society recognized. What is important is that most of the Neoplatonic writings we have are clearly philosophical rather than religious or otherwise concerned with the supernatural. I shall therefore take it for granted that we are talking about philosophy, and not any of the other things with which Neoplatonism has sometimes been associated, and which may undoubtedly be found in some of its products.
[introduction p. 1-2]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1126","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1126,"authors_free":[{"id":1701,"entry_id":1126,"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":2440,"entry_id":1126,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"Platonism in late antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Platonism in late antiquity"},"abstract":"The Platonism of late antiquity is, of course, what we now call Neoplatonism. That term is a modern one. \u2018Neoplatonist\u2019 and \u2018Neoplatonic\u2019 first appeared in English and French in the 1830s. All the philosophers whose work comes under this heading thought of themselves simply as Platonists, and the doctrine they were expounding as the Platonic philosophy. For Plotinus, the man normally thought of as the founder of this type of philosophy, all that he might have to say had been said before, though it might not have been set out explicitly, and could be found in the text of Plato (cf. V 1.8.10-14). For Proclus in the 5th century, after two hundred years of this kind of thinking, the same view of what he was doing still stood, as it did for Simplicius and Damascius into the 6th. Thus, Proclus, in the preface to his Platonic Theology, could write of his whole enterprise, and that of his Neoplatonic predecessors, as the understanding and exposition of the truths in Plato.\r\n\r\nGiven our modern views of Plato and Aristotle, as working philosophers whose views developed and whose answers to questions were not always the same, it is important to realize that their ancient interpreters looked at them as creators of fixed systems: though they might recognize that they did not always say the same things about the same questions, they saw such apparent inconsistencies as problems about the relation of disparate statements to an assumed single doctrine rather than about how one different doctrine might relate to another.\r\n\r\nBefore going on, I should perhaps offer some explanations and an apology. The apology is to those who know a great deal, or even a little, about Neoplatonism to whom some of what I shall say is basic common knowledge. The explanations are two.\r\n\r\nFirst, that I am taking late antiquity to start in the 3rd century A.D., following an old Cambridge custom of taking ancient Greek philosophy to have ended with the death of Marcus Aurelius. The second is to say what I am going to do here. It relates to the first. When this view of the limits of classical antiquity still held, the study of Neoplatonism was regarded as rather disreputable, in the English-speaking world at least, and the few apparent exceptions\u2014Elements of Theology, still one of the great achievements of Neoplatonic scholarship, and the first modern commentary on a Neoplatonic work\u2014was seen not so much as evidence that there was here a rich field for new scholarly endeavor as an indication of that scholar\u2019s eccentricity. The common attitude found its expression in the preface to the first volume of W.K.C. Guthrie\u2019s History of Greek Philosophy, where he relegated Neoplatonism to the realms of the unphilosophical and the un-Greek:\r\n\r\n\"With Plotinus and his followers, as well as with their Christian contemporaries, there does seem to enter a new religious spirit which is not fundamentally Greek...\"\r\n\r\nThat was in 1962.\r\n\r\nWhat I want to do is to look at some of the characteristics of Neoplatonism and to see how the picture of this philosophy, or rather group of philosophies, has changed during the last three decades. I think most would now agree it is basically Greek. As to the importance of the religious and soteriological elements in it, which for many of its adherents was rather small in any case, that is arguable, and its significance depends on the extent to which one regards other forms of ancient philosophy as enquiries into how one should live the best life either in relation to one\u2019s own society or to the gods which that society recognized. What is important is that most of the Neoplatonic writings we have are clearly philosophical rather than religious or otherwise concerned with the supernatural. I shall therefore take it for granted that we are talking about philosophy, and not any of the other things with which Neoplatonism has sometimes been associated, and which may undoubtedly be found in some of its products.\r\n[introduction p. 1-2]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A5Y90b8NYMkY9Vs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1126,"section_of":214,"pages":"1-27","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hj2vOznXoMqSzco","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Platonism in late antiquity"]}

Pluralism after Parmenides, 1998
By: Curd, Patricia
Title Pluralism after Parmenides
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1998
Published in The Legacy of Parmenides. Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought
Pages 127-179
Categories no categories
Author(s) Curd, Patricia
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In  this  chapter  I turn  from  Parmenides  to  two  of his  successors,  examining the Pluralist theories  of Anaxagoras  and Empedocles,  in order to explore the 
influence  of Parmenides  on  these  later  thinkers.  I  argue  that  this  influence 
appears  in two fundamental  aspects  of their theories:  in their conceptions  of 
the fundamental entities that are the genuine beings of their cosmologies,  and 
in the form (mixture  and Separation  of the basic  entities)  these cosmologies 
take.  I begin  with  a short discussion  of the  question  of Pluralism  itself and 
then turn first to Anaxagoras  and then to Empedocles. [Introduction, pp. 127 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"910","_score":null,"_source":{"id":910,"authors_free":[{"id":1340,"entry_id":910,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":58,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Curd, Patricia","free_first_name":"Patricia","free_last_name":"Curd","norm_person":{"id":58,"first_name":"Patricia","last_name":"Curd","full_name":"Curd, Patricia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13843980X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pluralism after Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Pluralism after Parmenides"},"abstract":"In this chapter I turn from Parmenides to two of his successors, examining the Pluralist theories of Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in order to explore the \r\ninfluence of Parmenides on these later thinkers. I argue that this influence \r\nappears in two fundamental aspects of their theories: in their conceptions of \r\nthe fundamental entities that are the genuine beings of their cosmologies, and \r\nin the form (mixture and Separation of the basic entities) these cosmologies \r\ntake. I begin with a short discussion of the question of Pluralism itself and \r\nthen turn first to Anaxagoras and then to Empedocles. [Introduction, pp. 127 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rPBPoCGoPofFCOl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":58,"full_name":"Curd, Patricia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":910,"section_of":1284,"pages":"127-179","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1284,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Legacy of Parmenides. Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought ","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Curd1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Parmenides of Elea was the most important and influential philosopher before Plato. Patricia Curd here reinterprets Parmenides' views and offers a new account of his relation to his predecessors and successors. On the traditional interpretation, Parmenides argues that generation, destruction, and change are unreal and that only one thing exists. He therefore rejected as impossible the scientific inquiry practiced by the earlier Presocratic philosophers. But the philosophers who came after Parmenides attempted to explain natural change and they assumed the reality of a plurality of basic entities. Thus, on the traditional interpretation, the later Presocratics either ignored or contradicted his arguments. In this book, Patricia Curd argues that Parmenides sought to reform rather than to reject scientific inquiry and offers a more coherent account of his influence on the philosophers who came after him.\r\n\r\nThe Legacy of Parmenides provides a detailed examination of Parmenides' arguments, considering his connection to earlier Greek thought and how his account of what-is could serve as a model for later philosophers. It then considers the theories of those who came after him, including the Pluralists (Anaxagoras and Empedocles), the Atomists (Leucippus and Democritus), the later Eleatics (Zeno and Melissus), and the later Presocratics Philolaus of Croton and Diogenes of Apollonia. The book closes with a discussion of the importance of Parmenides' views for the development of Plato's Theory of Forms. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ySFJ6JlG0mDNxxJ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1284,"pubplace":"Princeton","publisher":"Princeton University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Pluralism after Parmenides"]}

Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions, 1995
By: Algra, Keimpe A., Algra, Keimpe A. (Ed.)
Title Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1995
Published in Concepts of space in Greek thought
Pages 192-260
Categories no categories
Author(s) Algra, Keimpe A.
Editor(s) Algra, Keimpe A.
Translator(s)
In the present chapter, I have discussed several early Peripatetic attempts to come to terms with Aristotle’s theory of place. These were studied against the background of Aristotle’s theory of place itself and the obscurities and problems it involved. As was already noted in the previous chapter, Aristotle’s dialectical discussion in Phys. A exhibited a number of rough edges and loose ends. Thus, he nowhere explicitly reconciled his own two claims that place should have some power and that it should not be counted as one of the four familiar causes.

In section 5.1, it was shown, or so I hope, that it is possible to reconstruct his position by a closer study of the dialectical structure of the discussion of topos in Phys. A and by adducing a number of other relevant passages from elsewhere in the Physics and the De Caelo. In the course of this chapter, it became clear that the resulting picture of the non-dynamic character of Aristotelian place was confirmed by the few remarks on this issue that have come down to us from Theophrastus and Eudemus.

Two other problems left open by Aristotle—viz., the interrelated problems of the immobility of place and its ontological status—seem to have been more difficult to solve, as I have tried to show in section 5.2. They were discussed—together with a number of other problems, such as the problem of the emplacement of the heavens—by both Eudemus and Theophrastus.

It appears—if we are allowed to draw some general conclusions from the scanty fragments that have come down to us—that each of these two pupils of Aristotle continued his master’s work in his own way: Theophrastus by continuing Aristotle’s critical dialectical approach, which involved his feeling free to sometimes add some rather radically alternative suggestions, and Eudemus by mainly filling out Aristotle’s own suggestions by adducing material from elsewhere in his work or by rephrasing Aristotle’s arguments in clearer terms.

But even if Eudemus appears to have been the more ‘orthodox’ of the two, we should not overestimate the strength and the extent of Theophrastus’ dissent from Aristotle. It appears to have consisted mainly in his leaving the aporia of fr. 146 unanswered while putting forward the contents of fr. 149 as hardly more than a suggested alternative. Moreover, it is worth noting that, in a way, the conception of place as a relation between bodies—suggested in fr. 149—may be regarded as constituting a sensible elaboration rather than a complete rejection of the Aristotelian position.

For insofar as it still defines the place of a thing in terms of its surroundings rather than in terms of a SidaxTijxa (whether in the Platonic or in the atomist sense), it remains on the Aristotelian side of the line drawn by Aristotle himself at Phys. A 209b1-7.¹⁴⁴ And unlike the alternative proposed by Strato, this conception of place could, in principle, be taken over ceteris paribus, leaving the rest of the system of Aristotelian physics intact.

At the same time, it should be clear that Theophrastus’ solution, however hesitantly put forward, is far superior from a systematic point of view. It might even be claimed that it transforms Aristotle’s (and Eudemus’) rather naïve theory of place (focusing on the location of individual substances) into what we might call a theory of space (in principle allowing an account of the sum total of spatial relations within the cosmos).¹⁴⁵

This brings us to the curious fact that this novel conception of place did not have a wider appeal. As we saw, we actually have to wait for Damascius to take up Theophrastus’ suggestion. This is probably partly due to the fact that Theophrastus omitted to elaborate his point and that, as a consequence, it did not become widely known. In addition, the relational conception of place suggested by Theophrastus, if worked out properly, was much more technical and much farther removed from everyday usage and ordinary experience than its contemporary rivals.

We need only look at Aristotle’s theory of topos and the way in which it was taken seriously in antiquity (and beyond) to see to what extent lack of technicality and closeness to common thinking and speaking were commonly counted as virtues.

This, in turn, leads us to the question of the influence of (Eudemus and) Theophrastus in general. To some extent, the doubts, criticisms, and refinements of Aristotle’s theory put forward by Eudemus and Theophrastus may have proved seminal. At any rate, later critics of the Aristotelian position, such as Simplicius, found it worthwhile to refer to their ideas or to add quotations from their work.

And the mere fact that Aristotle’s theory of place had come under attack within the Peripatos and that even a relatively faithful pupil like Eudemus had felt obliged to advocate some changes may have encouraged the much bolder dissent of a philosopher like Strato of Lampsacus. Yet, it should be stressed that the precise extent of the influence of these early Peripatetics is impossible to determine.¹⁴⁶

At any rate, there is no positive evidence that any of the later critics of Aristotle was directly influenced by Theophrastus or Eudemus, and it should be kept in mind that these critics probably did not even need their examples. Indeed, Aristotle himself provided enough ammunition—for example, by failing to answer the question of the ontological status of place, by failing to provide a more technical account of immobility,¹⁴⁷ and by attacking the most obvious rival view (place as a three-dimensional extension) with very unsatisfactory arguments. [conclusion p. 258-260]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1159","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1159,"authors_free":[{"id":1735,"entry_id":1159,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2347,"entry_id":1159,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions","main_title":{"title":"Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions"},"abstract":"In the present chapter, I have discussed several early Peripatetic attempts to come to terms with Aristotle\u2019s theory of place. These were studied against the background of Aristotle\u2019s theory of place itself and the obscurities and problems it involved. As was already noted in the previous chapter, Aristotle\u2019s dialectical discussion in Phys. A exhibited a number of rough edges and loose ends. Thus, he nowhere explicitly reconciled his own two claims that place should have some power and that it should not be counted as one of the four familiar causes.\r\n\r\nIn section 5.1, it was shown, or so I hope, that it is possible to reconstruct his position by a closer study of the dialectical structure of the discussion of topos in Phys. A and by adducing a number of other relevant passages from elsewhere in the Physics and the De Caelo. In the course of this chapter, it became clear that the resulting picture of the non-dynamic character of Aristotelian place was confirmed by the few remarks on this issue that have come down to us from Theophrastus and Eudemus.\r\n\r\nTwo other problems left open by Aristotle\u2014viz., the interrelated problems of the immobility of place and its ontological status\u2014seem to have been more difficult to solve, as I have tried to show in section 5.2. They were discussed\u2014together with a number of other problems, such as the problem of the emplacement of the heavens\u2014by both Eudemus and Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt appears\u2014if we are allowed to draw some general conclusions from the scanty fragments that have come down to us\u2014that each of these two pupils of Aristotle continued his master\u2019s work in his own way: Theophrastus by continuing Aristotle\u2019s critical dialectical approach, which involved his feeling free to sometimes add some rather radically alternative suggestions, and Eudemus by mainly filling out Aristotle\u2019s own suggestions by adducing material from elsewhere in his work or by rephrasing Aristotle\u2019s arguments in clearer terms.\r\n\r\nBut even if Eudemus appears to have been the more \u2018orthodox\u2019 of the two, we should not overestimate the strength and the extent of Theophrastus\u2019 dissent from Aristotle. It appears to have consisted mainly in his leaving the aporia of fr. 146 unanswered while putting forward the contents of fr. 149 as hardly more than a suggested alternative. Moreover, it is worth noting that, in a way, the conception of place as a relation between bodies\u2014suggested in fr. 149\u2014may be regarded as constituting a sensible elaboration rather than a complete rejection of the Aristotelian position.\r\n\r\nFor insofar as it still defines the place of a thing in terms of its surroundings rather than in terms of a SidaxTijxa (whether in the Platonic or in the atomist sense), it remains on the Aristotelian side of the line drawn by Aristotle himself at Phys. A 209b1-7.\u00b9\u2074\u2074 And unlike the alternative proposed by Strato, this conception of place could, in principle, be taken over ceteris paribus, leaving the rest of the system of Aristotelian physics intact.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, it should be clear that Theophrastus\u2019 solution, however hesitantly put forward, is far superior from a systematic point of view. It might even be claimed that it transforms Aristotle\u2019s (and Eudemus\u2019) rather na\u00efve theory of place (focusing on the location of individual substances) into what we might call a theory of space (in principle allowing an account of the sum total of spatial relations within the cosmos).\u00b9\u2074\u2075\r\n\r\nThis brings us to the curious fact that this novel conception of place did not have a wider appeal. As we saw, we actually have to wait for Damascius to take up Theophrastus\u2019 suggestion. This is probably partly due to the fact that Theophrastus omitted to elaborate his point and that, as a consequence, it did not become widely known. In addition, the relational conception of place suggested by Theophrastus, if worked out properly, was much more technical and much farther removed from everyday usage and ordinary experience than its contemporary rivals.\r\n\r\nWe need only look at Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos and the way in which it was taken seriously in antiquity (and beyond) to see to what extent lack of technicality and closeness to common thinking and speaking were commonly counted as virtues.\r\n\r\nThis, in turn, leads us to the question of the influence of (Eudemus and) Theophrastus in general. To some extent, the doubts, criticisms, and refinements of Aristotle\u2019s theory put forward by Eudemus and Theophrastus may have proved seminal. At any rate, later critics of the Aristotelian position, such as Simplicius, found it worthwhile to refer to their ideas or to add quotations from their work.\r\n\r\nAnd the mere fact that Aristotle\u2019s theory of place had come under attack within the Peripatos and that even a relatively faithful pupil like Eudemus had felt obliged to advocate some changes may have encouraged the much bolder dissent of a philosopher like Strato of Lampsacus. Yet, it should be stressed that the precise extent of the influence of these early Peripatetics is impossible to determine.\u00b9\u2074\u2076\r\n\r\nAt any rate, there is no positive evidence that any of the later critics of Aristotle was directly influenced by Theophrastus or Eudemus, and it should be kept in mind that these critics probably did not even need their examples. Indeed, Aristotle himself provided enough ammunition\u2014for example, by failing to answer the question of the ontological status of place, by failing to provide a more technical account of immobility,\u00b9\u2074\u2077 and by attacking the most obvious rival view (place as a three-dimensional extension) with very unsatisfactory arguments. [conclusion p. 258-260]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JNlEob1OVl4sohO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1159,"section_of":232,"pages":"192-260","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":232,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Concepts of space in Greek thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra1995c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Concepts of Space in Greek Thought studies ancient Greek theories of physical space and place, in particular those of the classical and Hellenistic period. These theories are explained primarily with reference to the general philosophical or methodological framework within which they took shape. Special attention is paid to the nature and status of the sources. Two introductory chapters deal with the interrelations between various concepts of space and with Greek spatial terminology (including case studies of the Eleatics, Democritus and Epicurus). The remaining chapters contain detailed studies on the theories of space of Plato, Aristotle, the early Peripatetics and the Stoics.\r\nThe book is especially useful for historians of ancient physics, but may also be of interest to students of Aristotelian dialectic, ancient metaphysics, doxography, and medieval and early modern physics.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Goiwos39VOpY6H9","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":232,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"65","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions"]}

Roman Aristotle, 1997
By: Barnes, Jonathan (Ed.), Griffin, Miriam (Ed.), Barnes, Jonathan
Title Roman Aristotle
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1997
Published in Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome
Pages 1-69
Categories no categories
Author(s) , Barnes, Jonathan
Editor(s) Barnes, Jonathan , Griffin, Miriam
Translator(s)
When Theophrastus died, his library, which included the library of Aristotle, was carried off to the Troad. His successors found nothing much to read; the Lyceum sank into a decline; and Peripatetic ideas had little influence on the course of Hellenistic philosophy. It was only with the rediscovery of the library that Aristotelianism revived—and it revived in Italy. For the library went from the Troad to Athens—whence, as part of Sulla’s war booty, to Rome. There, Andronicus of Rhodes produced the ‘Roman edition’ of the corpus Aristotelicum. It was the first complete and systematic version of Aristotle’s works, the first publication in their full form of the technical treatises, the first genuinely critical edition of the text.

Andronicus’ Roman edition caused a sensation. It revitalized the languishing Peripatetics. It set off an explosion of Aristotelian studies. It laid the foundation for all subsequent editions of Aristotle’s works, including our modern texts. When we read Aristotle, we should pour a libation to Andronicus—and to Sulla.

That story is the main subject of the following pages. It is familiar enough; my argument will be laborious; I have nothing new to say about it; and my general conclusions are dispiritingly skeptical. But recent scholarship on the topic has taken to the bottle of fantasy and stumbled drunkenly from one dogmatism to the next. Another look at the pertinent texts may be forgiven—and in any event, the story is a peach.

My concern (let me stress at the start) is the way in which Aristotle’s texts reached Rome—and us. I am not concerned with the general influence of Peripatetic ideas on the Roman intelligentsia—that is a vast and complex question; nor am I concerned with the specific influence of Aristotle’s ideas on the Roman intelligentsia—that is a different question, less vast and more complex. Indeed, I deal neither with the history of ideas nor with the history of philosophy: my subject is an episode in the history of books and the book trade. [introduction p. 1]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"961","_score":null,"_source":{"id":961,"authors_free":[{"id":1442,"entry_id":961,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1443,"entry_id":961,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":417,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Griffin, Miriam","free_first_name":"Miriam","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":417,"first_name":"Miriam","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Miriam","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121037975","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2242,"entry_id":961,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Roman Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Roman Aristotle"},"abstract":"When Theophrastus died, his library, which included the library of Aristotle, was carried off to the Troad. His successors found nothing much to read; the Lyceum sank into a decline; and Peripatetic ideas had little influence on the course of Hellenistic philosophy. It was only with the rediscovery of the library that Aristotelianism revived\u2014and it revived in Italy. For the library went from the Troad to Athens\u2014whence, as part of Sulla\u2019s war booty, to Rome. There, Andronicus of Rhodes produced the \u2018Roman edition\u2019 of the corpus Aristotelicum. It was the first complete and systematic version of Aristotle\u2019s works, the first publication in their full form of the technical treatises, the first genuinely critical edition of the text.\r\n\r\nAndronicus\u2019 Roman edition caused a sensation. It revitalized the languishing Peripatetics. It set off an explosion of Aristotelian studies. It laid the foundation for all subsequent editions of Aristotle\u2019s works, including our modern texts. When we read Aristotle, we should pour a libation to Andronicus\u2014and to Sulla.\r\n\r\nThat story is the main subject of the following pages. It is familiar enough; my argument will be laborious; I have nothing new to say about it; and my general conclusions are dispiritingly skeptical. But recent scholarship on the topic has taken to the bottle of fantasy and stumbled drunkenly from one dogmatism to the next. Another look at the pertinent texts may be forgiven\u2014and in any event, the story is a peach.\r\n\r\nMy concern (let me stress at the start) is the way in which Aristotle\u2019s texts reached Rome\u2014and us. I am not concerned with the general influence of Peripatetic ideas on the Roman intelligentsia\u2014that is a vast and complex question; nor am I concerned with the specific influence of Aristotle\u2019s ideas on the Roman intelligentsia\u2014that is a different question, less vast and more complex. Indeed, I deal neither with the history of ideas nor with the history of philosophy: my subject is an episode in the history of books and the book trade. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/u9wKWex3PBO13aQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":417,"full_name":"Griffin, Miriam","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":961,"section_of":283,"pages":"1-69","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":283,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Barnes\/Griffin1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The mutual interaction of philosophy and Roman political and cultural life has aroused more and more interest in recent years among students of classical literature, Roman history, and ancient philosophy. In this volume, which gathers together some of the papers originally delivered at a series of seminars in the University of Oxford, scholars from all three disciplines explore the role of Platonism and Aristotelianism in Roman intellectual, cultural, and political life from the second century BC to the third century AD.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y4n6429uWaNLuD2","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":283,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Roman Aristotle"]}

Simplicius, 1992
By: Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Françoise , Jacob, André (Ed.), Mattéi, Jean-François (Ed.)
Title Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language French
Date 1992
Published in Encyclopédie philosophique universelle: Les oeuvres philosophiques
Pages 319-321
Categories no categories
Author(s) Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Françoise
Editor(s) Jacob, André , Mattéi, Jean-François
Translator(s)
Ce néoplatonicien est le dernier grand philosophe païen de l’Antiquité tardive. Ses grands commentaires sur Aristote et sur le Manuel d'Épictète ont été largement exploités comme une mine de renseignements sur l’histoire de la philosophie antique, par exemple sur les œuvres des présocratiques, des péripatéticiens et des stoïciens. Toutefois, à l’exception du commentaire sur le Manuel d'Épictète, ces œuvres n’ont pas, jusqu’ici, été étudiées dans leur ensemble d’une manière permettant de connaître le système philosophique de Simplicius lui-même dans ses détails.

Des recherches récentes ont montré que, contrairement à ce que pensait encore K. Praechter, Simplicius est, dans l’ensemble de son œuvre, largement tributaire des doctrines philosophiques de son maître Damascius. Ce dernier, en critiquant Proclus, avait développé le plus riche des systèmes néoplatoniciens, marqué par une différenciation ontologique poussée à l’extrême.

Simplicius ne nous a laissé aucune indication concernant sa patrie, le lieu ou la date de sa naissance. Il nous informe seulement qu’il a suivi à Alexandrie l’enseignement d’Ammonius, fils d’Hermias et disciple de Proclus, et, à un lieu ou des lieux non spécifiés, l’enseignement de Damascius. Grâce à un ensemble d’autres sources, grecques et arabes, ainsi qu’à quelques indices contenus dans ses propres œuvres, nous pouvons compléter sa biographie comme suit : Simplicius est né en Cilicie, en Asie Mineure. Il a été élève d’Ammonius à Alexandrie avant 517 de notre ère et s’est retrouvé en Perse en 532 avec les philosophes Damascius (son maître), Eulamios, Priscien, Hermias, Diogène et Isidore de Gaza, à une date difficile à déterminer.

On peut supposer un lien entre le séjour des philosophes grecs en Perse et l’interdiction, édictée par Justinien en 529, d’enseigner la philosophie et le droit à Athènes, bien qu’aucune source ne le précise. Simplicius quitta la Perse en 532, en compagnie des autres philosophes, pour s’installer à Harrân (Carrhae) et y enseigner dans l’école néoplatonicienne de cette ville, située en territoire byzantin. C’est là qu’il composa tous ses commentaires.

Notons enfin que l’authenticité du Commentaire sur le traité De l'âme d’Aristote a été mise en doute par F. Bossier et C. Steel (cf. compte rendu de P. Hadot). Le Commentaire sur le traité de Jamblique « Sur la secte de Pythagore » est perdu, et il ne reste que quelques fragments des commentaires sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote et sur le premier livre des Éléments d’Euclide.

Œuvres principales de Simplicius :

    Commentaire sur le traité Du ciel d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Aristotelous Peri ouranou), vers 533.
    Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote (Eis to proton tes Aristotelous Phusikes akroaseos), vers 538.
    Commentaire aux Catégories d'Aristote (Hupomnema eis tas Kategorias tou Aristotelous), vers 538.
    Commentaire sur le traité De l'âme d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Peri psuches Aristotelous hupomnema), vers 538.

Étant impossible de donner, en quelques lignes, un résumé pertinent pour chacun de ces volumineux commentaires, il est instructif de fournir quelques explications générales sur leur fonction, leur structure et leur tendance philosophique. Ces commentaires combinent des applications concrètes de la sképsis aux thèses de la logique, de la physique et de l’éthique. [the entire article]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"694","_score":null,"_source":{"id":694,"authors_free":[{"id":1032,"entry_id":694,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":141,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Franc\u0327oise ","free_first_name":"Franc\u0327oise ","free_last_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky","norm_person":{"id":141,"first_name":"Francoise ","last_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky","full_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Francoise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1033,"entry_id":694,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":140,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jacob, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Jacob","norm_person":{"id":140,"first_name":"Jacob","last_name":"Andr\u00e9 ","full_name":"Jacob, Andr\u00e9 ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1024554724","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1978,"entry_id":694,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":142,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Matt\u00e9i, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Jean-Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Matt\u00e9i","norm_person":{"id":142,"first_name":"Jean-Fran\u00e7ois ","last_name":"Matt\u00e9i","full_name":"Matt\u00e9i, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13666606X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Ce n\u00e9oplatonicien est le dernier grand philosophe pa\u00efen de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive. Ses grands commentaires sur Aristote et sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te ont \u00e9t\u00e9 largement exploit\u00e9s comme une mine de renseignements sur l\u2019histoire de la philosophie antique, par exemple sur les \u0153uvres des pr\u00e9socratiques, des p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens et des sto\u00efciens. Toutefois, \u00e0 l\u2019exception du commentaire sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, ces \u0153uvres n\u2019ont pas, jusqu\u2019ici, \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9tudi\u00e9es dans leur ensemble d\u2019une mani\u00e8re permettant de conna\u00eetre le syst\u00e8me philosophique de Simplicius lui-m\u00eame dans ses d\u00e9tails.\r\n\r\nDes recherches r\u00e9centes ont montr\u00e9 que, contrairement \u00e0 ce que pensait encore K. Praechter, Simplicius est, dans l\u2019ensemble de son \u0153uvre, largement tributaire des doctrines philosophiques de son ma\u00eetre Damascius. Ce dernier, en critiquant Proclus, avait d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 le plus riche des syst\u00e8mes n\u00e9oplatoniciens, marqu\u00e9 par une diff\u00e9renciation ontologique pouss\u00e9e \u00e0 l\u2019extr\u00eame.\r\n\r\nSimplicius ne nous a laiss\u00e9 aucune indication concernant sa patrie, le lieu ou la date de sa naissance. Il nous informe seulement qu\u2019il a suivi \u00e0 Alexandrie l\u2019enseignement d\u2019Ammonius, fils d\u2019Hermias et disciple de Proclus, et, \u00e0 un lieu ou des lieux non sp\u00e9cifi\u00e9s, l\u2019enseignement de Damascius. Gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 un ensemble d\u2019autres sources, grecques et arabes, ainsi qu\u2019\u00e0 quelques indices contenus dans ses propres \u0153uvres, nous pouvons compl\u00e9ter sa biographie comme suit : Simplicius est n\u00e9 en Cilicie, en Asie Mineure. Il a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9l\u00e8ve d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie avant 517 de notre \u00e8re et s\u2019est retrouv\u00e9 en Perse en 532 avec les philosophes Damascius (son ma\u00eetre), Eulamios, Priscien, Hermias, Diog\u00e8ne et Isidore de Gaza, \u00e0 une date difficile \u00e0 d\u00e9terminer.\r\n\r\nOn peut supposer un lien entre le s\u00e9jour des philosophes grecs en Perse et l\u2019interdiction, \u00e9dict\u00e9e par Justinien en 529, d\u2019enseigner la philosophie et le droit \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes, bien qu\u2019aucune source ne le pr\u00e9cise. Simplicius quitta la Perse en 532, en compagnie des autres philosophes, pour s\u2019installer \u00e0 Harr\u00e2n (Carrhae) et y enseigner dans l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne de cette ville, situ\u00e9e en territoire byzantin. C\u2019est l\u00e0 qu\u2019il composa tous ses commentaires.\r\n\r\nNotons enfin que l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 du Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 De l'\u00e2me d\u2019Aristote a \u00e9t\u00e9 mise en doute par F. Bossier et C. Steel (cf. compte rendu de P. Hadot). Le Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 de Jamblique \u00ab Sur la secte de Pythagore \u00bb est perdu, et il ne reste que quelques fragments des commentaires sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote et sur le premier livre des \u00c9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Euclide.\r\n\r\n\u0152uvres principales de Simplicius :\r\n\r\n Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 Du ciel d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Aristotelous Peri ouranou), vers 533.\r\n Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote (Eis to proton tes Aristotelous Phusikes akroaseos), vers 538.\r\n Commentaire aux Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (Hupomnema eis tas Kategorias tou Aristotelous), vers 538.\r\n Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 De l'\u00e2me d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Peri psuches Aristotelous hupomnema), vers 538.\r\n\r\n\u00c9tant impossible de donner, en quelques lignes, un r\u00e9sum\u00e9 pertinent pour chacun de ces volumineux commentaires, il est instructif de fournir quelques explications g\u00e9n\u00e9rales sur leur fonction, leur structure et leur tendance philosophique. Ces commentaires combinent des applications concr\u00e8tes de la sk\u00e9psis aux th\u00e8ses de la logique, de la physique et de l\u2019\u00e9thique. [the entire article]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QFpZ6wLm1XbKKRr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":141,"full_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Francoise ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":140,"full_name":"Jacob, Andr\u00e9 ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":142,"full_name":"Matt\u00e9i, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":694,"section_of":361,"pages":"319-321","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":361,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Encyclop\u00e9die philosophique universelle: Les oeuvres philosophiques","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Mattei1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OwmYyz8HeXbVYFD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":361,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses Universitaires de France","series":"","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}

Simplicius, 1996
By: Sorabji, Richard, Spawforth, Antony (Ed.), Hornblower, Simon (Ed.)
Title Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1996
Published in The Oxford Classical Dictionary
Pages 1409-1410
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s) Spawforth, Antony , Hornblower, Simon
Translator(s)
Simplicius, 6th-cent. AD Neoplatonist (see Neoplatonism) and one of seven philosophers who left Athens for Ctesiphon after Justinian closed the Athenian Neoplatonist school in 529. He probably wrote all his commentaries after 532, when it was safe for the philosophers to leave Ctesiphon. Recent evidence suggests that he may have settled at Harran (ancient Carrhae) in present-day Turkey, from where Platonism was brought back in the 9th cent. to Baghdad.

Simplicius was taught by Ammonius (2) in Alexandria and by Damascius, head of the Athenian school. He wrote commentaries, all extant, on Aristotle's De caelo, Physics, and Categories (in that order), and on Epictetus' Manual, among other works. A commentary on Aristotle’s De anima is of disputed authorship. His are the fullest of all Aristotle commentaries, recording debates on Aristotle from the preceding 850 years and embedding many fragments from the entire millennium.

At the same time, Simplicius gave his own views on many topics, including place, time, and matter. His commentaries express the revulsion of a devout Neoplatonist for Christianity and for its arch-philosophical defender, Philoponus.

Commentary in Aristotelium Graeca 7-11 (1882-1907), partly trans. in R. Sorabji (ed.), The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle (1987- ); In Ench. Epict., ed. Dübner (1840), trans. G. Stanhope (1694). I. Hadot (ed.), Simplicius, sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie (1987); M. Tardieu, Coutumes mésopotamiennes (1991); RE3A 1 (1927). R. R. K. S. [the entire entry]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1386","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1386,"authors_free":[{"id":2139,"entry_id":1386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2142,"entry_id":1386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":335,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Spawforth, Antony","free_first_name":"Antony","free_last_name":"Spawforth","norm_person":{"id":335,"first_name":"Antony","last_name":"Spawforth","full_name":"Spawforth, Antony","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131894757","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2143,"entry_id":1386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":334,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hornblower, Simon","free_first_name":"Simon","free_last_name":"Hornblower","norm_person":{"id":334,"first_name":"Simon","last_name":"Hornblower","full_name":"Hornblower, Simon","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135771676","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius, 6th-cent. AD Neoplatonist (see Neoplatonism) and one of seven philosophers who left Athens for Ctesiphon after Justinian closed the Athenian Neoplatonist school in 529. He probably wrote all his commentaries after 532, when it was safe for the philosophers to leave Ctesiphon. Recent evidence suggests that he may have settled at Harran (ancient Carrhae) in present-day Turkey, from where Platonism was brought back in the 9th cent. to Baghdad.\r\n\r\nSimplicius was taught by Ammonius (2) in Alexandria and by Damascius, head of the Athenian school. He wrote commentaries, all extant, on Aristotle's De caelo, Physics, and Categories (in that order), and on Epictetus' Manual, among other works. A commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De anima is of disputed authorship. His are the fullest of all Aristotle commentaries, recording debates on Aristotle from the preceding 850 years and embedding many fragments from the entire millennium.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, Simplicius gave his own views on many topics, including place, time, and matter. His commentaries express the revulsion of a devout Neoplatonist for Christianity and for its arch-philosophical defender, Philoponus.\r\n\r\nCommentary in Aristotelium Graeca 7-11 (1882-1907), partly trans. in R. Sorabji (ed.), The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle (1987- ); In Ench. Epict., ed. D\u00fcbner (1840), trans. G. Stanhope (1694). I. Hadot (ed.), Simplicius, sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie (1987); M. Tardieu, Coutumes m\u00e9sopotamiennes (1991); RE3A 1 (1927). R. R. K. S. [the entire entry]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vzddeyFIMrhk1Ab","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":335,"full_name":"Spawforth, Antony","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":334,"full_name":"Hornblower, Simon","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1386,"section_of":1387,"pages":"1409-1410","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1387,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Oxford Classical Dictionary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hornblower1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"For more than half a century, the Oxford Classical Dictionary has been the unrivaled one-volume reference work on the Greco-Roman world. Whether one is interested in literature or art, philosophy or law, mythology or science, intimate details of daily life or broad cultural and historical trends, the OCD is the first place to turn for clear, authoritative information on all aspects of ancient culture.\r\n\r\nNow comes the Fourth Edition of this redoubtable resource, thoroughly revised and updated, with numerous new entries and two new focus areas (on reception and anthropology). Here, in over six thousand entries ranging from long articles to brief identifications, readers can find information on virtually any topic of interest--athletics, bee-keeping, botany, magic, religious rites, postal service, slavery, navigation, and the reckoning of time. The Oxford Classical Dictionary profiles every major figure of Greece and Rome, from Homer and Virgil to Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. Readers will find entries on mythological and legendary figures, on major cities, famous buildings, and important geographical landmarks, and on legal, rhetorical, literary, and political terms and concepts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FsDwLlWXlqssLoo","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1387,"pubplace":"Oxford \u2013 New York","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"3","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}

Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD), 1998
By: Wildberg, Christian, Craig, Edward (Ed.)
Title Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD)
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1998
Published in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 8)
Pages 788-791
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wildberg, Christian
Editor(s) Craig, Edward
Translator(s)
Simplicius of Cilicia, a Greek Neoplatonic philosopher and polymath, lived in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He is the author of the most learned commentaries on Aristotle produced in antiquity, works which rest upon the accumulated accomplishments of ancient Greek philosophy and science. In them he gives numerous illuminating references and explanations that not only lead to a fuller understanding of Aristotle, but also allow one to reconstruct the history of the interpretation and criticism of Aristotelian doctrines in antiquity.  The main principle that guides Simplicius’ exegesis is the conviction that most Greek philosophers, including some Presocratics, can be brought into agreement with Neoplatonism. Simplicius adduces copious quotations to prove his point, thereby supplying us with substantial fragments from lost works of thinkers like Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Eudemus and the Stoics. A devout pagan, Simplicius sought to defend traditional Greek religion and philosophy against the oppressive dominance of Christianity. His commentaries have influenced the reception and interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy ever since. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"717","_score":null,"_source":{"id":717,"authors_free":[{"id":1066,"entry_id":717,"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":1067,"entry_id":717,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":470,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Craig, Edward","free_first_name":"Edward","free_last_name":"Craig","norm_person":{"id":470,"first_name":"Edward","last_name":"Craig","full_name":"Craig, Edward","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1079630643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD)"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia, a Greek Neoplatonic philosopher and polymath, lived in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He is the author of the most learned commentaries on Aristotle produced in antiquity, works which rest upon the accumulated accomplishments of ancient Greek philosophy and science. In them he gives numerous illuminating references and explanations that not only lead to a fuller understanding of Aristotle, but also allow one to reconstruct the history of the interpretation and criticism of Aristotelian doctrines in antiquity. The main principle that guides Simplicius\u2019 exegesis is the conviction that most Greek philosophers, including some Presocratics, can be brought into agreement with Neoplatonism. Simplicius adduces copious quotations to prove his point, thereby supplying us with substantial fragments from lost works of thinkers like Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Eudemus and the Stoics. A devout pagan, Simplicius sought to defend traditional Greek religion and philosophy against the oppressive dominance of Christianity. His commentaries have influenced the reception and interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy ever since. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XZqDDiQkn8uEw2C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":470,"full_name":"Craig, Edward","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":717,"section_of":716,"pages":"788-791","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":716,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 8)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Edward1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online (REP Online) is the largest and most comprehensive resource available for all those involved in the study of philosophy. It is a trusted source of quality information, providing access to over 2,800 articles that have been edited for level and consistency by a team of renowned subject experts.\u00a0\r\nRegularly updated with new and revised articles it is the ideal entry point for further discovery and research, clearly organised and with over 25,000 cross-references linking themes, concepts and philosophers. It is also an ideal reference source for those in subjects related to philosophy, such as politics, psychology, economics, anthropology, religion and literature. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hd71FhU5RvTpqmA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":716,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD)"]}

Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur Überlieferung des Anführungszeichens, 1993
By: Wildberg, Christian, Berger, Friederike (Ed.), Brockmann, Christian (Ed.), De Gregorio, Giuseppe (Ed.), Ghisu, Maria Irene (Ed.), Kotzabassi, Sofia (Ed.), Noack, Beate (Ed.)
Title Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur Überlieferung des Anführungszeichens
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1993
Published in Symbolae Berolinenses. Für Dieter Harlfinger
Pages 187-199
Categories no categories
Author(s) Wildberg, Christian
Editor(s) Berger, Friederike , Brockmann, Christian , De Gregorio, Giuseppe , Ghisu, Maria Irene , Kotzabassi, Sofia , Noack, Beate
Translator(s)
Gewiss, ein lückenloser Beweis der Ursprünglichkeit der Anführungszeichen im Mardanus 226, geschweige denn für die Zeichensetzung im Allgemeinen, ist hiermit nicht gelungen und war in Anbetracht der Quellenlage auch gar nicht möglich. Dennoch, die aus diesen Beobachtungen zu ziehende Schlussfolgerung ist, dass die in mittelalterlichen Handschriften so häufigen und eindeutigen Anführungszeichen keineswegs im Namen der Textkritik ignoriert werden sollten. Möglicherweise ließe sich dieselbe Forderung mit ähnlicher Berechtigung auch für andere Zeichen geltend machen.

Jedenfalls sollte man ernsthaft in Betracht ziehen, dass gerade in Abschriften aus Texten spätantiker Zeit Zeichen überliefert sein können, die nicht nur für das korrekte Verständnis eines Textes unverzichtbar sind, sondern auch dem Autor selbst, und nicht irgendeinem gelehrten Schreiber viel späterer Zeit, zu verdanken sind. Es sei daher abschließend an dieser Stelle und achtzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen der Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde an einen ganz ähnlichen Hinweis Ulrich Wilckens erinnert:

"Einige Interpunktionszeichen wird man in den Urkunden selten finden ... Dagegen war es von den frühesten Zeiten an eine weitverbreitete Sitte, Sätze oder Satzteile oder gar Wörter durch größere oder kleinere Spatien zu trennen. Auf diese in den Editionen noch viel zu wenig zum Ausdruck kommende Interpunktion möchte ich die Papyrusleser ganz besonders aufmerksam machen, da durch sie uns oft die authentische Interpretation des Schreibers an die Hand gegeben wird." [conclusion p. 196-197]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"722","_score":null,"_source":{"id":722,"authors_free":[{"id":1076,"entry_id":722,"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":1077,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":361,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Berger, Friederike","free_first_name":"Friederike","free_last_name":"Berger","norm_person":{"id":361,"first_name":"Friederike","last_name":"Berger","full_name":"Berger, Friederike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1216192375","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2415,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2417,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":474,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"De Gregorio, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"De Gregorio","norm_person":{"id":474,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"De Gregorio","full_name":"De Gregorio, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1056147482","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2419,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":475,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ghisu, Maria Irene","free_first_name":"Maria Irene","free_last_name":"Ghisu","norm_person":{"id":475,"first_name":"Maria Irene","last_name":"Ghisu","full_name":"Ghisu, Maria Irene","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2421,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":476,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kotzabassi, Sofia","free_first_name":"Sofia","free_last_name":"Kotzabassi","norm_person":{"id":476,"first_name":"Sofia","last_name":"Kotzabassi","full_name":"Kotzabassi, Sofia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1030288763","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2423,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":477,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Noack, Beate","free_first_name":"Beate","free_last_name":"Noack","norm_person":{"id":477,"first_name":"Beate","last_name":"Noack","full_name":"Noack, Beate","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1223988120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur \u00dcberlieferung des Anf\u00fchrungszeichens","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur \u00dcberlieferung des Anf\u00fchrungszeichens"},"abstract":"Gewiss, ein l\u00fcckenloser Beweis der Urspr\u00fcnglichkeit der Anf\u00fchrungszeichen im Mardanus 226, geschweige denn f\u00fcr die Zeichensetzung im Allgemeinen, ist hiermit nicht gelungen und war in Anbetracht der Quellenlage auch gar nicht m\u00f6glich. Dennoch, die aus diesen Beobachtungen zu ziehende Schlussfolgerung ist, dass die in mittelalterlichen Handschriften so h\u00e4ufigen und eindeutigen Anf\u00fchrungszeichen keineswegs im Namen der Textkritik ignoriert werden sollten. M\u00f6glicherweise lie\u00dfe sich dieselbe Forderung mit \u00e4hnlicher Berechtigung auch f\u00fcr andere Zeichen geltend machen.\r\n\r\nJedenfalls sollte man ernsthaft in Betracht ziehen, dass gerade in Abschriften aus Texten sp\u00e4tantiker Zeit Zeichen \u00fcberliefert sein k\u00f6nnen, die nicht nur f\u00fcr das korrekte Verst\u00e4ndnis eines Textes unverzichtbar sind, sondern auch dem Autor selbst, und nicht irgendeinem gelehrten Schreiber viel sp\u00e4terer Zeit, zu verdanken sind. Es sei daher abschlie\u00dfend an dieser Stelle und achtzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen der Grundz\u00fcge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde an einen ganz \u00e4hnlichen Hinweis Ulrich Wilckens erinnert:\r\n\r\n\"Einige Interpunktionszeichen wird man in den Urkunden selten finden ... Dagegen war es von den fr\u00fchesten Zeiten an eine weitverbreitete Sitte, S\u00e4tze oder Satzteile oder gar W\u00f6rter durch gr\u00f6\u00dfere oder kleinere Spatien zu trennen. Auf diese in den Editionen noch viel zu wenig zum Ausdruck kommende Interpunktion m\u00f6chte ich die Papyrusleser ganz besonders aufmerksam machen, da durch sie uns oft die authentische Interpretation des Schreibers an die Hand gegeben wird.\" [conclusion p. 196-197]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cjMqjU5dghJg6Mi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":361,"full_name":"Berger, Friederike","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":474,"full_name":"De Gregorio, Giuseppe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":475,"full_name":"Ghisu, Maria Irene","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":476,"full_name":"Kotzabassi, Sofia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":477,"full_name":"Noack, Beate","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":722,"section_of":353,"pages":"187-199","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":353,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Symbolae Berolinenses. F\u00fcr Dieter Harlfinger","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Berger1993","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WynC9SYoNF55LD8","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":353,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur \u00dcberlieferung des Anf\u00fchrungszeichens"]}

Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle’s De Anima, 1993
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.)
Title Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle’s De Anima
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1993
Published in Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism
Pages 91-112
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Translator(s)
Neoplatonic  exposition  of  classical  Greek  philosophy  includes 
two  kinds of reinterpretation. The  first  and  most basic  is,  of course, 
the reading of Plato himself as a Neoplatonist. This is, it goes without 
saying, to be found primarily in all the independent works of Neopla­
tonism,  as  well  as  in  commentaries  on  works  of  Plato.  The  other, 
with which  readers of the Aristotelian commentators  are  more often 
concerned,  is  the  Platonization  of Aristotle.  The  latter  is  crucial  to 
our understanding of any Neoplatonist commentator, both in himself 
and also as an authority on Aristotle. And since we are dealing with a 
text at least superficially based on Aristotle, I shall devote most of this 
paper  to  some  of the  somewhat  strange  interpretations  of  him  to  be 
found in Book  1  of the De anima commentary. At the same time this 
particular book also offers an opportunity, which the commentary on 
what will  have seemed to  him the  more obviously philosophically in­
teresting  parts  of  the  De  anima  does  not1,  to  see  how  Simplicius 
works  in  the  area  of  Plato  interpretation,  and  we  shall  look  at  the 
way  in  which  Plato  and  Aristotle  are  both  subjected  to  similar tech­
niques of interpretation. [p. 91]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"795","_score":null,"_source":{"id":795,"authors_free":[{"id":1173,"entry_id":795,"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":2441,"entry_id":795,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"},"abstract":"Neoplatonic exposition of classical Greek philosophy includes \r\ntwo kinds of reinterpretation. The first and most basic is, of course, \r\nthe reading of Plato himself as a Neoplatonist. This is, it goes without \r\nsaying, to be found primarily in all the independent works of Neopla\u00ad\r\ntonism, as well as in commentaries on works of Plato. The other, \r\nwith which readers of the Aristotelian commentators are more often \r\nconcerned, is the Platonization of Aristotle. The latter is crucial to \r\nour understanding of any Neoplatonist commentator, both in himself \r\nand also as an authority on Aristotle. And since we are dealing with a \r\ntext at least superficially based on Aristotle, I shall devote most of this \r\npaper to some of the somewhat strange interpretations of him to be \r\nfound in Book 1 of the De anima commentary. At the same time this \r\nparticular book also offers an opportunity, which the commentary on \r\nwhat will have seemed to him the more obviously philosophically in\u00ad\r\nteresting parts of the De anima does not1, to see how Simplicius \r\nworks in the area of Plato interpretation, and we shall look at the \r\nway in which Plato and Aristotle are both subjected to similar tech\u00ad\r\nniques of interpretation. [p. 91]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b0MGk7ACSQL6CCE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":795,"section_of":214,"pages":"91-112","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hj2vOznXoMqSzco","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"]}

Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5, 1997
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Joyal, Mark (Ed.)
Title Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1997
Published in Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to John Whittaker
Pages 213-228
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Joyal, Mark
Translator(s)
As often, the title of this paper needs a word of explanation, since some readers, though not our dedicatee, might wonder who the author I call Ps-Simplicius might be. Those whose interests lie in Aristotle rather than his Neoplatonic commentators may not all be aware that there is a serious problem about the authorship of the De Anima commentary, which they know as the work of Simplicius.

This is not the place to discuss this problem, which I and others have discussed elsewhere,¹ but the fact, as I think one must now take it to be, that our author is not the real Simplicius has an important implication for any study on the text of this work. That is, the substantial corpus of work by Simplicius himself cannot be used to corroborate—or undermine—readings in our work, and one cannot appeal to it for support for a conjecture. This is all the more so since one of the stronger arguments for denying authorship to the real Simplicius is that the language of the De Anima commentary is so different from his as to put it beyond the bounds of possibility that we are dealing with two different kinds of writing from one and the same hand.*²

If, as some think, the author was Priscian of Lydia, author of the Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, we could occasionally appeal to that work, though it is short—a mere thirty-seven pages of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca.³ But I think there are difficulties about that identification which are sufficient to require at least a degree of caution, and that all one can safely say is that this commentary comes from the same intellectual area as the works of Simplicius, Priscian, and Damascius, all Neoplatonists who worked in Athens at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth.

Hence the label Ps-Simplicius—a counsel of prudence, if not quite despair: not quite, because a solution is possible in principle, though I suspect that we may never arrive at it.
[introduction p. 213-214]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1469","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1469,"authors_free":[{"id":2543,"entry_id":1469,"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}},{"id":2544,"entry_id":1469,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":540,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Joyal, Mark","free_first_name":"Mark","free_last_name":"Joyal","norm_person":{"id":540,"first_name":"Mark","last_name":"Joyal","full_name":"Joyal, Mark","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162514582","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5","main_title":{"title":"Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5"},"abstract":"As often, the title of this paper needs a word of explanation, since some readers, though not our dedicatee, might wonder who the author I call Ps-Simplicius might be. Those whose interests lie in Aristotle rather than his Neoplatonic commentators may not all be aware that there is a serious problem about the authorship of the De Anima commentary, which they know as the work of Simplicius.\r\n\r\nThis is not the place to discuss this problem, which I and others have discussed elsewhere,\u00b9 but the fact, as I think one must now take it to be, that our author is not the real Simplicius has an important implication for any study on the text of this work. That is, the substantial corpus of work by Simplicius himself cannot be used to corroborate\u2014or undermine\u2014readings in our work, and one cannot appeal to it for support for a conjecture. This is all the more so since one of the stronger arguments for denying authorship to the real Simplicius is that the language of the De Anima commentary is so different from his as to put it beyond the bounds of possibility that we are dealing with two different kinds of writing from one and the same hand.*\u00b2\r\n\r\nIf, as some think, the author was Priscian of Lydia, author of the Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, we could occasionally appeal to that work, though it is short\u2014a mere thirty-seven pages of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca.\u00b3 But I think there are difficulties about that identification which are sufficient to require at least a degree of caution, and that all one can safely say is that this commentary comes from the same intellectual area as the works of Simplicius, Priscian, and Damascius, all Neoplatonists who worked in Athens at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth.\r\n\r\nHence the label Ps-Simplicius\u2014a counsel of prudence, if not quite despair: not quite, because a solution is possible in principle, though I suspect that we may never arrive at it.\r\n[introduction p. 213-214]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SafBRE6SrgivoG5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":540,"full_name":"Joyal, Mark","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1469,"section_of":1470,"pages":"213-228","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1470,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to John Whittaker","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book, which honours the career of a distinguished scholar, contains essays dealing with important problems in Plato, the Platonic tradition, and the texts and transmission of Plato and later Platonic writers. It ranges from the discussion of issues in individual Platonic dialogues to the examination of Platonism in the Middle Ages. The essays are written by leading scholars in the field and reflect the current state of knowledge on the various problems under discussion. The collection as a whole testifies to the importance of the Platonic writings for the history of ideas, and to the vitality that the study of these writings continues to possess.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JhijSNjBEJlYa2C","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1470,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge (2017)","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5"]}

Soul Vehicles in Simplicius, 1993
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.)
Title Soul Vehicles in Simplicius
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1993
Published in Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism
Pages 173-188
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Translator(s)
There has been a not inconsiderable amount of discussion of the nature and function of the ochêma—or ochêmata—the body or bodies made of not quite bodily substance, which served as an intermediary between body and soul in various Neoplatonisms from Porphyry, or even arguably Plotinus, down to and including Proclus. Rather less attention, and in Simplicius’ case virtually none, has been paid to the nature and role of such intermediary vehicles in the Neoplatonist commentators on Aristotle.

The purpose of the following pages will be to examine the use of the concept in Simplicius. In particular, it will seek to establish:

    How many such vehicles there were.
    What they were made of.
    What was their function, and, related to this:
    What was their life expectancy.
    Were they simply such as one would expect to find in the work of a Neoplatonist at this time, or are they in some way modified by the commentary context?

In considering these matters, special attention will be paid to the vocabulary used to discuss them. It should not, however, come as a surprise to discover that it is not significantly, if at all, different from that of those Neoplatonists who did not concentrate their endeavors on the exposition of Aristotle. [introduction p. 173]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"896","_score":null,"_source":{"id":896,"authors_free":[{"id":1322,"entry_id":896,"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":2442,"entry_id":896,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"Soul Vehicles in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Soul Vehicles in Simplicius"},"abstract":"There has been a not inconsiderable amount of discussion of the nature and function of the och\u00eama\u2014or och\u00eamata\u2014the body or bodies made of not quite bodily substance, which served as an intermediary between body and soul in various Neoplatonisms from Porphyry, or even arguably Plotinus, down to and including Proclus. Rather less attention, and in Simplicius\u2019 case virtually none, has been paid to the nature and role of such intermediary vehicles in the Neoplatonist commentators on Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of the following pages will be to examine the use of the concept in Simplicius. In particular, it will seek to establish:\r\n\r\n How many such vehicles there were.\r\n What they were made of.\r\n What was their function, and, related to this:\r\n What was their life expectancy.\r\n Were they simply such as one would expect to find in the work of a Neoplatonist at this time, or are they in some way modified by the commentary context?\r\n\r\nIn considering these matters, special attention will be paid to the vocabulary used to discuss them. It should not, however, come as a surprise to discover that it is not significantly, if at all, different from that of those Neoplatonists who did not concentrate their endeavors on the exposition of Aristotle. [introduction p. 173]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iFGbdffl8v5SpA9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":896,"section_of":214,"pages":"173-188","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hj2vOznXoMqSzco","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Soul Vehicles in Simplicius"]}

Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion, 1999
By: Thiel, Rainer, Fuhrer, Therese (Ed.), Erler, Michael (Ed.)
Title Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion
Type Book Section
Language German
Date 1999
Published in Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Spätantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier
Pages 93-103
Categories no categories
Author(s) Thiel, Rainer
Editor(s) Fuhrer, Therese , Erler, Michael
Translator(s)
The text presents an analysis of the Stoic ethics and its placement within the Neoplatonic system, particularly in Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Enchiridion. It explores how the Neoplatonic tradition emerged as a unified philosophical school, leading to the disappearance of conflicting philosophical schools. Despite the Stoic teachings being present in Neoplatonic works, they are generally treated critically and dismissed as opposed to the Aristotelian position. The text then delves into the Neoplatonic system of virtues, starting with Plato's four cardinal virtues, which were further developed by Neoplatonists. It highlights Plotinus' view that the political virtues alone are not sufficient for the soul's ascent to divine perfection, as they are related to the material world. Instead, Plotinus introduces the concept of "purifications" as the virtues that enable the soul to detach from bodily passions and elevate itself towards the divine. The abstract concludes by emphasizing the relevance of Simplikios' application of this Neoplatonic virtue system to Epictetus' Enchiridion, positioning it as an essential tool for the soul's progress towards resemblance to the divine. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"470","_score":null,"_source":{"id":470,"authors_free":[{"id":633,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":333,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Thiel, Rainer","free_first_name":"Rainer","free_last_name":"Thiel","norm_person":{"id":333,"first_name":"Rainer","last_name":"Thiel","full_name":"Thiel, Rainer","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12885054X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":634,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":339,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","free_first_name":"Therese","free_last_name":"Fuhrer","norm_person":{"id":339,"first_name":"Therese","last_name":"Fuhrer","full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117693804","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":635,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion","main_title":{"title":"Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion"},"abstract":"The text presents an analysis of the Stoic ethics and its placement within the Neoplatonic system, particularly in Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Enchiridion. It explores how the Neoplatonic tradition emerged as a unified philosophical school, leading to the disappearance of conflicting philosophical schools. Despite the Stoic teachings being present in Neoplatonic works, they are generally treated critically and dismissed as opposed to the Aristotelian position. The text then delves into the Neoplatonic system of virtues, starting with Plato's four cardinal virtues, which were further developed by Neoplatonists. It highlights Plotinus' view that the political virtues alone are not sufficient for the soul's ascent to divine perfection, as they are related to the material world. Instead, Plotinus introduces the concept of \"purifications\" as the virtues that enable the soul to detach from bodily passions and elevate itself towards the divine. The abstract concludes by emphasizing the relevance of Simplikios' application of this Neoplatonic virtue system to Epictetus' Enchiridion, positioning it as an essential tool for the soul's progress towards resemblance to the divine. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RKLOhPA3UpPbgKk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":333,"full_name":"Thiel, Rainer","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":339,"full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":470,"section_of":324,"pages":"93-103","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":324,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Sp\u00e4tantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fuhrer\/Erler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Review by T. Runia: As a generalization it is often remarked that the poor state of our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, based almost exclusively on reports and fragments, is due to the decline of interest in this philosophy during the period of late antiquity. After the schools had closed down by the beginning of the 3rd century C.E., Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean writings ceased to circulate widely, and in the end disappeared completely. Of course the end result of this process cannot be disputed. These writings have simply disappeared and, short of a miracle, they will not resurface.\r\n\r\nBut the process certainly took longer and was less radical in its earlier stages than is often thought. Late ancient philosophers and theologians in many cases still had a considerable knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy and used that knowledge to good effect in their own writings.\r\n\r\nThe theme of the reception of Hellenistic philosophy in late antiquity is the subject of the book under review, which contains fifteen studies originally presented at a conference in Trier in 1997. The studies are in German, with two exceptions, a paper in Italian and one in English. They have been prepared by a group of young scholars, mainly in their 30's and 40's, who in most cases have taken up positions in German and Swiss universities during the past decade or so.\r\n\r\nReviewing the various studies, one cannot but help noticing a marked similarity of method. The subjects treated are on the whole fairly limited in scope, and often concentrate on a particular author and a particular text. The detailed treatment is usually prefaced by an introductory section, which places the subject in a wider context, for example by tracing its development from the end of the Hellenistic period to the time of the author being discussed.These introductory sections can sometimes be very entertaining and informative (as in the case of the article of Christoph Riedweg, who points out remarkable correspondences between the period of late antiquity and our own time), but can also be too much simply a catalogue of authors and texts (as in the case of the survey of Epicureanism from Hadrian to Lactantius in the article by Jochem Althoff). The end result is that we have fifteen small but well-featured islands standing out in the broader sea of the book's subject.\r\n\r\nThe brief introduction competently but very succinctly outlines three connecting themes:\r\n\r\n The role of the Stoa and Epicureanism in Platonist philosophy.\r\n Scepticism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism in Christian literature.\r\n Doctrines of the Hellenistic philosophical schools as general cultural knowledge (Bildungsgut).\r\n\r\nBut no real attempt is made to cover the subject in more general terms. This is increasingly the method of such selective conference volumes. In spite of the general title, it is primarily a book for specialists.\r\n\r\nThe fifteen papers can be more or less divided into the three thematic categories noted above. Four concentrate on Hellenistic themes in later Platonism: Dominic O'Meara on Epicurus Neoplatonicus, Rainer Thiel and Michael Erler on the preparatory role of Hellenistic (and especially Stoic) ethics, Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel on Proclus' doctrine of the origin of evil and its Hellenistic antecedents. Christoph Riedweg, by investigating Julian's use of Stoic and Platonic argumentation in his anti-Christian polemic, bridges the gap with the eight contributions which concentrate on Patristic authors.\r\n\r\nThe intellectual dominance of Augustine is illustrated by the fact that no less than five contributions concentrate on his writings: Maria Bettetini on the background to De musica (very little Hellenistic philosophy here), Karin Schlapbach on Ciceronian and Neoplatonist elements in the proarmia of Contra Academicos I & II, Sabine Harwardt on Stoic argumentation in De beata vita, Christoph Horn on Augustine's moral philosophy in relation to Greek virtue ethics, Therese Fuhrer on the Hellenistic epistemological background of Augustine's concept of faith.\r\n\r\nThe other three specifically Patristic contributions are on Amobius (philosophical themes in his apologetic argumentation, by Sabine Follinger), Lactantius (his use of Epicurus, by Jochem Althoff), and Prudentius (virtue against vice in the Psychomachia, by Carolin Oser-Grote).\r\n\r\nThe volume ends with two more general treatments. Karla Pollman attempts to trace two differing conceptions of fictionality\u2014the Platonic mimesis-model focused on the author and the Stoic signification-model focused more on the reader\u2014from Hellenistic philosophy to their adaptation in late ancient texts. Ulrich Eigler, in an ambitious and stimulating contribution, investigates the cultural context of the kind of amateur use of philosophy that we find, for example, in Jerome's writings. Of these fifteen articles, three stand out on account of the lucidity of their treatment and the importance of their subject. Christoph Horn's method is perhaps somewhat unusual, in that he focuses his treatment of Augustine's virtue ethics almost entirely on a point-by-point rebuttal of the position of the Swedish scholar of a previous generation, Gosta Hok, whom he accuses of interpreting Augustine in such a way as to make him a fideistic opponent of ancient rationalism. In actual fact, Augustine unreservedly takes over the basic theses of ancient ethical rationalism, but in his later years reserves it for followers of the \"true religion,\" without coming to a real discussion with its original Neoplatonist proponents.\r\n\r\nMany of Horn's points are well taken, but one wonders whether in this interpretation the gulf between Augustine's professed method of selective spoliatio and his actual practice of largely uncritical appropriation (as proposed by Horn) does not become too great. What Augustine objects to in ancient rationalism is its intellectual arrogance, the refusal to submit to the yoke of faith. This position seems to me to have revisionary aspirations. The struggle between \"catholic\" and \"protestant\" readings of Augustine is likely to continue.\r\n\r\nIn her paper on the epistemological background to Augustine's conception of faith, Therese Fuhrer argues that it is to be found in the Stoic theory in which assent (adsensio, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) precedes both knowledge (scientia, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7, based on comprehensio, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) and belief (opinio, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1). A priori, this seems not so likely, since the role assigned to volition in the two conceptions is quite different. Nevertheless, Fuhrer manages to show that both in terms of structure and terminology this background does have illuminating features.\r\n\r\nA difficulty remains that no texts indicating an explicit relation between the act of faith and epistemological assent can be found until two passages in very late writings. This article illustrates how difficult it is to pin Augustine down in relation to specific philosophical theories. It is his powerful transforming drive that makes his views so distinctive and so hard to categorize in \"doxographical\" terms.\r\n\r\nThe article of Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel is recommended reading for anyone interested in how ancient philosophers working within the tradition of classical ontology wrestled with the problem of evil. Not only does it give an excellent overview of the dilemmas involved and the solutions attempted, but it also draws on the new translation of Proclus' De malorum substantia, which the authors are preparing.\r\n\r\nThey show how Proclus tries to find a way out of the classical dilemma in which one either has to detract from providence or not take evil seriously enough as a real aspect of the world. Proclus' solution is intriguing but very risky. Any attribution of evil to the first cause is unacceptable, but in the light of Neoplatonist ontological monism this means that one has to understand evil as an (ultimately) uncaused event.\r\n\r\nNot only is this very awkward in light of the Platonic principle nihil fit sine causa, which Proclus fully endorses, but it also seems to reduce evil to a kind of accidental epiphenomenon. Opsomer and Steel argue that Proclus may have found a third way between the Stoa and the Peripatos (which reserves providence for the divine realm only), but at a considerable cost. They tentatively conclude that the Stoa continues to hold the last word in this debate, and that theodicy may well be the worst legacy that this school has left to subsequent philosophy. This is perhaps a somewhat disappointing result, but no better illustration could be given of the importance of studying Hellenistic philosophy as a background for late ancient and patristic philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn furthering this study, the book under review makes a valuable contribution. The volume also shows, as the product of predominantly young scholars, that the future of scholarship in the area of later ancient and Patristic philosophy is in good hands.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Wi5qXtXGHesjYwT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":324,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion"]}

The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity, 2000
By: Sluiter, Ineke, Depew, Mary (Ed.), Obbink, Dirk (Ed.)
Title The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2000
Published in Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society
Pages 183-203
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sluiter, Ineke
Editor(s) Depew, Mary , Obbink, Dirk
Translator(s)
In ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of “genre”), “secondary literature” was rarely regarded as a full-blown genre (εἶδος) (see the fourth major section, earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator (second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commentator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal representation of his source-text, but at the same time, he cannot give up his critical judgment.

The commentator has a dual professional affiliation, as a doctor, philosopher, or astronomer, etc., and as a “grammarian,” an interpreter of someone else’s work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, the commentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the activities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever-accumulating knowledge.

Ancient commentators themselves are familiar with generic distinctions and apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on the source-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that they themselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks. They are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position—even though they do not call their own work a separate “genre” (fifth section, earlier).

There is a risk of reducing the term “genre” to virtual meaninglessness if every subdivision made in ancient texts is described as the recognition of a new genre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions, both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the special nature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. The prefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplify the rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of the commentators on the nature of their activities.

However, it is possible to engage in that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms of genre. [conclusion 202–203]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"394","_score":null,"_source":{"id":394,"authors_free":[{"id":518,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":317,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","free_first_name":"Ineke","free_last_name":"Sluiter","norm_person":{"id":317,"first_name":"Ineke","last_name":"Sluiter","full_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132967278","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":519,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":59,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Depew, Mary","free_first_name":"Mary","free_last_name":"Depew","norm_person":{"id":59,"first_name":" Mary","last_name":"Depew","full_name":"Depew, Mary","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174040806","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":520,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":318,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Obbink, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Obbink","norm_person":{"id":318,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Obbink","full_name":"Obbink, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132550458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity"},"abstract":"In ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of \u201cgenre\u201d), \u201csecondary literature\u201d was rarely regarded as a full-blown genre (\u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2) (see the fourth major section, earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator (second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commentator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal representation of his source-text, but at the same time, he cannot give up his critical judgment.\r\n\r\nThe commentator has a dual professional affiliation, as a doctor, philosopher, or astronomer, etc., and as a \u201cgrammarian,\u201d an interpreter of someone else\u2019s work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, the commentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the activities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever-accumulating knowledge.\r\n\r\nAncient commentators themselves are familiar with generic distinctions and apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on the source-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that they themselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks. They are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position\u2014even though they do not call their own work a separate \u201cgenre\u201d (fifth section, earlier).\r\n\r\nThere is a risk of reducing the term \u201cgenre\u201d to virtual meaninglessness if every subdivision made in ancient texts is described as the recognition of a new genre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions, both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the special nature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. The prefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplify the rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of the commentators on the nature of their activities.\r\n\r\nHowever, it is possible to engage in that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms of genre. [conclusion 202\u2013203]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6IXo92il3CT8q6x","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":317,"full_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":59,"full_name":"Depew, Mary","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":318,"full_name":"Obbink, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":394,"section_of":319,"pages":"183-203","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":319,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Depew\/Obbink2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"The literary genres given shape by the writers of classical antiquity are central to our own thinking about the various forms literature takes. Examining those genres, the essays collected here focus on the concept and role of the author and the emergence of authorship out of performance in Greece and Rome.\r\n\r\nIn a fruitful variety of ways the contributors to this volume address the questions: what generic rules were recognized and observed by the Greeks and Romans over the centuries; what competing schemes were there for classifying genres and accounting for literary change; and what role did authors play in maintaining and developing generic contexts? Their essays look at tragedy, epigram, hymns, rhapsodic poetry, history, comedy, bucolic poetry, prophecy, Augustan poetry, commentaries, didactic poetry, and works that \"mix genres.\"\r\n\r\nThe contributors bring to this analysis a wide range of expertise; they are, in addition to the editors, Glenn W. Most, Joseph Day, Ian Rutherford, Deborah Boedeker, Eric Csapo, Marco Fantuzzi, Stephanie West, Alessandro Barchiesi, Ineke Sluiter, Don Fowler, and Stephen Hinds. The essays are drawn from a colloquium at Harvard's Center for Hellenic Studies. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yqvzvd62JmM5MpJ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":319,"pubplace":"Cambridge (Mass.)","publisher":"Harvard University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity"]}

The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories, 1991
By: Hadot, Ilsetraut, Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.), Robinson, Howard (Ed.)
Title The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1991
Published in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition
Pages 175-189
Categories no categories
Author(s) Hadot, Ilsetraut
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard
Translator(s)
This brief comparison between Plato and Aristotle reveals once again the attitude of our Alexandrian commentators—Philoponus, Olympiodorus, and Elias in the case I have just discussed—towards the philosophers: for them, the two philosophers are mutually complementary, but the genius of the divine Plato is superior to Aristotle.

Aristotle only knows how to establish logical rules, which he discovers by analyzing the logical elements in Plato’s work, whereas Plato practiced logical proof spontaneously and intuitively without formulating the rules for it. Here again, we meet the principle of Aristotle’s inferiority to Plato, which determines the harmonizing trend as well as its limitations.

Thanks to Marinus’ Life of Proclus and Damascius’ Life of Isidore, we know the role of the study of the works of Aristotle with commentary in the teaching of the School of Athens at the time when Syrianus, then Proclus, then Isidore ran the School. Syrianus initiated Proclus into Plato’s mystical doctrine after Proclus had been adequately prepared by studying the works of Aristotle, as if, so to speak, by way of preparatory or ‘minor’ mysteries.

So, in directing Proclus’ studies, Syrianus proceeds in due order, as Marinus emphasizes, and ‘does not leap over the threshold’; in other words, Proclus proceeds in the set order and does not miss out any step in the teaching. Isidore, too, came to Plato’s philosophy after studying Aristotle.

I hope to have shown in this paper that the part played by the study of and commentary on Aristotle’s works remained the same up to the end of Neoplatonism. Aristotle was never studied for his own sake by the Neoplatonists, but always as a necessary preparation for the philosophy of Plato. [conclusion p. 188-189]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"640","_score":null,"_source":{"id":640,"authors_free":[{"id":909,"entry_id":640,"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":910,"entry_id":640,"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":911,"entry_id":640,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories","main_title":{"title":"The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories"},"abstract":"This brief comparison between Plato and Aristotle reveals once again the attitude of our Alexandrian commentators\u2014Philoponus, Olympiodorus, and Elias in the case I have just discussed\u2014towards the philosophers: for them, the two philosophers are mutually complementary, but the genius of the divine Plato is superior to Aristotle.\r\n\r\nAristotle only knows how to establish logical rules, which he discovers by analyzing the logical elements in Plato\u2019s work, whereas Plato practiced logical proof spontaneously and intuitively without formulating the rules for it. Here again, we meet the principle of Aristotle\u2019s inferiority to Plato, which determines the harmonizing trend as well as its limitations.\r\n\r\nThanks to Marinus\u2019 Life of Proclus and Damascius\u2019 Life of Isidore, we know the role of the study of the works of Aristotle with commentary in the teaching of the School of Athens at the time when Syrianus, then Proclus, then Isidore ran the School. Syrianus initiated Proclus into Plato\u2019s mystical doctrine after Proclus had been adequately prepared by studying the works of Aristotle, as if, so to speak, by way of preparatory or \u2018minor\u2019 mysteries.\r\n\r\nSo, in directing Proclus\u2019 studies, Syrianus proceeds in due order, as Marinus emphasizes, and \u2018does not leap over the threshold\u2019; in other words, Proclus proceeds in the set order and does not miss out any step in the teaching. Isidore, too, came to Plato\u2019s philosophy after studying Aristotle.\r\n\r\nI hope to have shown in this paper that the part played by the study of and commentary on Aristotle\u2019s works remained the same up to the end of Neoplatonism. Aristotle was never studied for his own sake by the Neoplatonists, but always as a necessary preparation for the philosophy of Plato. [conclusion p. 188-189]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mXkoXV2wq7SgBs3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":640,"section_of":354,"pages":"175-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories"]}

The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition, 1997
By: Gaskin, Richard , Sorabji, Richard (Ed.)
Title The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1997
Published in Aristotle and after
Pages 91-107
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gaskin, Richard
Editor(s) Sorabji, Richard
Translator(s)
As far as traditional classifications go, the Stoics count as materialists. But it is notorious that there were four things in  their world-view which do not fit this caracterization: time, place, the void and the so-called ‘sayables', or lekta (SE AM 10.218  =  FDS 720). Lekta consist of three main kinds of quasi-linguistic item: centrally, simple propositions (as well as certain non-assertoric, but grammatically autonomous, items) are ‘complete’ lekta (DL 7 .6-8 = FDS  696, 874; SE AM 8.70-74).  From these propositions, more complex ‘complete’ lekta maybe constructed, such as conditionals (DL 7.71) or syllogisms (DL 7.63). And within the structure of complete lekta, ‘incomplete’ lekta, such as predicates, maybe discerned. I call lekta quasi-linguistic, rather than linguistic,  because,  as we learn from an important passage in Sextus (AM 8.11-13 = FDS 67), the Stoics distinguished lekta both from language and from physical objects in the world. Hence linguistic items such as the verb (rhêma) ‘writes’ and the complete sentence (logos) ‘Socrates writes’ should be kept rigorously apart from their corresponding lekta  -  the predicate (katigorema) writes and the complete proposition (axidma) Socrates writes - which the linguistic expressions signify  (semainein: SE AM 8.11 - 12, DL 7.56, 58, 65). 
In this paper I shall examine the Stoic treatment of the main constituents of the complete lekton: cases and predicates. I shall argue that cases are, like predicates, (incomplete) lekta, and that the verbal noun played a central role in Stoic thinking about lekta. In the light of these reflections, I shall conclude with some speculative remarks on the unity of the proposition. [Introduction, p. 91]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1177","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1177,"authors_free":[{"id":1751,"entry_id":1177,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":132,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","free_first_name":"Richard ","free_last_name":"Gaskin","norm_person":{"id":132,"first_name":"Richard ","last_name":"Gaskin","full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1049853571","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2358,"entry_id":1177,"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":"The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition","main_title":{"title":"The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition"},"abstract":"As far as traditional classifications go, the Stoics count as materialists. But it is notorious that there were four things in their world-view which do not fit this caracterization: time, place, the void and the so-called \u2018sayables', or lekta (SE AM 10.218 = FDS 720). Lekta consist of three main kinds of quasi-linguistic item: centrally, simple propositions (as well as certain non-assertoric, but grammatically autonomous, items) are \u2018complete\u2019 lekta (DL 7 .6-8 = FDS 696, 874; SE AM 8.70-74). From these propositions, more complex \u2018complete\u2019 lekta maybe constructed, such as conditionals (DL 7.71) or syllogisms (DL 7.63). And within the structure of complete lekta, \u2018incomplete\u2019 lekta, such as predicates, maybe discerned. I call lekta quasi-linguistic, rather than linguistic, because, as we learn from an important passage in Sextus (AM 8.11-13 = FDS 67), the Stoics distinguished lekta both from language and from physical objects in the world. Hence linguistic items such as the verb (rh\u00eama) \u2018writes\u2019 and the complete sentence (logos) \u2018Socrates writes\u2019 should be kept rigorously apart from their corresponding lekta - the predicate (katigorema) writes and the complete proposition (axidma) Socrates writes - which the linguistic expressions signify (semainein: SE AM 8.11 - 12, DL 7.56, 58, 65). \r\nIn this paper I shall examine the Stoic treatment of the main constituents of the complete lekton: cases and predicates. I shall argue that cases are, like predicates, (incomplete) lekta, and that the verbal noun played a central role in Stoic thinking about lekta. In the light of these reflections, I shall conclude with some speculative remarks on the unity of the proposition. [Introduction, p. 91]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tocHWc6xfMEeg9C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":132,"full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1177,"section_of":199,"pages":"91-107","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8uyail9ZCl9wfr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition"]}

The commentators: their identity and their background, 1996
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.)
Title The commentators: their identity and their background
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1996
Published in Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the "De Anima"
Pages 35-51
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Translator(s)
While in the previous chapter we have been looking at the overall similarity of the commentators’ methods and assumptions, it is now time to try to say something about them as individuals and the work they produced. This is not an easy task. We may have lives of the most important philosophers, Plotinus and Proclus, and even of an apparent nonentity like Isidore, but for those who wrote commentaries on Aristotle, we can often do little more than establish places of activity and approximate dates.

The information most consistently available is the most useless—an indication, sometimes no more than a manuscript tradition with all the doubts attaching to that, of the town or area a man came from or was known by: “Proclus the Lycian,” “Simplicius the Cilician,” “Priscian the Lydian.” Those who operated in Alexandria are usually labeled “Alexandrian,” too consistently for the label to be anything more than an indication that that was where they worked or spent an important part of their careers. Thus, all we know, in most cases, is where some of the writers we are concerned with began their lives, and then only to the extent of knowing what part of the world it was in.

Nevertheless, some information on the commentators is provided by sources that tell us about them incidentally to their main aim. Damascius’ reconstructed Life of Isidore is one such source: it deals in passing with those who were either personally or historically connected with the subject of the work. Much of the information about the relation between those who worked at Athens and Alexandria in the fifth and sixth centuries is derived from that source. In particular, most of the evidence about who studied with whom and where is to be found there.

Unfortunately, by far the larger of two collections of excerpts in Photius (codd. 181 and 242), by whom most of the surviving contents have been preserved, comes from a particularly scrappy part of his work, so that we often do not know which snippets should be taken together, a point that affects, among other things, an important question about Ammonius.

Two works that do survive and give us some further help are Zacharias’ Life of Severus, from which, though it concentrates on Christians, we can learn something about conditions in the schools of Alexandria as well as about their students and teachers, and the same writer’s dialogue Ammonius, which provides rather less than its title might lead one to hope, being concerned primarily with matters in dispute between pagans and Christians, such as the eternity of the world and the creative activity of God. It tells us very little about Ammonius but does raise a question of some importance about his beliefs, with which we must deal below.

At an earlier period, Marinus’ Life of Proclus, a document often distorted by the desire to fit biographical facts to philosophical notions, gives us some information about others who worked at Athens and are part of the story of Aristotelian commentary—namely, Plutarch and Syrianus, who, Marinus tells us, were respectively master and pupil, as well as both being teachers of Proclus. In addition, he mentions persons about whom he gives us little or no other information, such as Plutarch’s grandson Archiadas and Proclus’ contemporary Domninus. Unfortunately, the Life does not proceed in chronological order because its structure depends on a framework of the Neoplatonic scale of virtues and Proclus’ ascent to its summit.

In addition to what these sources provide, we have pieces of more or less incidental information from elsewhere, some of it not unimportant. Such are the dates infrequently given en passant in the commentaries and the occasional references to philosophy in both contemporary and later historians. Some of these references are notoriously difficult to interpret or even simply unreliable. In this category are the details of the exile of 529 and the possible return from it. In addition, there are entries in or from the lexica and other compilations so popular in late Classical antiquity and early Byzantine culture; some of these overlap both with each other and with the material found in Photius.

There are some figures in the tradition of Aristotelian commentary about whom we know almost nothing. Such are Asclepius, the editor of Ammonius’ Metaphysics course, at least for Books A-Z, Olympiodorus in the next generation, and his presumed pupil Elias. His—probably—contemporary David is well known in the Armenian tradition but not in the Greek. The last three, as it happens, are all later than the last surviving Life of a philosopher.

One of the perversities of the distribution of information is that we are often better informed about those whose work has been lost but was clearly important in the tradition, like Plutarch, and even those whose work has been lost and may not have been important in the interpretation of either the Platonic or the Aristotelian writings in any case, like Isidore, than about the authors of considerable parts of our corpus of texts, like Ammonius and Simplicius.

Let us now go back to the beginning and look at what we do know about those who contributed to the exposition of the De Anima, leaving aside Plotinus, whose contribution was the more general one of integrating Aristotelian psychology into Neoplatonic philosophy and about whose life we are reasonably well, if somewhat sporadically, informed.

We can say that Iamblichus, the initiator of the organization of the Neoplatonists’ Aristotle and Plato course, and perhaps their Aristotle course as well, probably did not write a De Anima commentary, a matter we shall return to shortly, but Ps-Simplicius claims to follow the guidance he offered in his own treatise on the soul.

Since, however, most of that has been lost, and Ps-Simplicius’ De Anima commentary notoriously fails to provide the extensive documentation and specific attributions found in the other Simplicius commentaries, we can assess neither the real extent nor the specific details of Iamblichus’ influence. That situation contrasts with what obtains in the case of their Categories commentaries: while in this case Iamblichus’ commentary is lost, Simplicius refers to it constantly by name.

It is worth mentioning that Proclus does the same in his Timaeus commentary, showing that Iamblichus’ lead was followed by at least some—perhaps avoiding at this stage adding "Athenians"—at both ends of the combined Aristotle and Plato course. Nevertheless, the combination of Ps-Simplicius’ expression of intent in the De Anima commentary and what actually happens in other commentaries suggests that Iamblichus’ influence on the exposition of the De Anima will not have been negligible.

Its extent may or may not have been greater because of his place early in the story: though his exact dates cannot be established, they fall in the second half of the third century and the beginning of the fourth, making it possible that he was actually a pupil of Porphyry, as later writers assert—an assertion that must, however, be treated with some care because of the notorious habit of ancient biographers and doxographers of arranging philosophers in chains of master-pupil relations, a habit that affects the whole history of Greek philosophy from Thales to the end.

After Iamblichus, there is a gap in the history of Platonism and also of Aristotelian exposition. The latter is, however, partly filled by the anomalous figure of Themistius, partly because of the very anomaly that consists in his being a Peripatetic and standing outside the mainstream of philosophical development, which was by now almost entirely Platonist.

Themistius differs from the other commentators in another respect too. Most of them were, as far as we know, the equivalent of professional philosophers today, producing philosophical research while earning their living by teaching, subsidized perhaps, in the case of those Neoplatonists working at Athens, by the Academy’s funds, from whatever source these came.

Themistius, on the other hand, was a diplomat and politician whose interest in Aristotle might be thought of as loosely analogous to Gladstone’s in Homer. The commentaries were written early in his life, and there is no evidence that he ever returned to actual study of Aristotle, nor that he ever taught philosophy. Nor is there any evidence that will withstand scrutiny that he ever wrote on Plato, great as his admiration for him was. [introduction p. 35-38]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1449","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1449,"authors_free":[{"id":2431,"entry_id":1449,"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}},{"id":2444,"entry_id":1449,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"The commentators: their identity and their background","main_title":{"title":"The commentators: their identity and their background"},"abstract":"While in the previous chapter we have been looking at the overall similarity of the commentators\u2019 methods and assumptions, it is now time to try to say something about them as individuals and the work they produced. This is not an easy task. We may have lives of the most important philosophers, Plotinus and Proclus, and even of an apparent nonentity like Isidore, but for those who wrote commentaries on Aristotle, we can often do little more than establish places of activity and approximate dates.\r\n\r\nThe information most consistently available is the most useless\u2014an indication, sometimes no more than a manuscript tradition with all the doubts attaching to that, of the town or area a man came from or was known by: \u201cProclus the Lycian,\u201d \u201cSimplicius the Cilician,\u201d \u201cPriscian the Lydian.\u201d Those who operated in Alexandria are usually labeled \u201cAlexandrian,\u201d too consistently for the label to be anything more than an indication that that was where they worked or spent an important part of their careers. Thus, all we know, in most cases, is where some of the writers we are concerned with began their lives, and then only to the extent of knowing what part of the world it was in.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, some information on the commentators is provided by sources that tell us about them incidentally to their main aim. Damascius\u2019 reconstructed Life of Isidore is one such source: it deals in passing with those who were either personally or historically connected with the subject of the work. Much of the information about the relation between those who worked at Athens and Alexandria in the fifth and sixth centuries is derived from that source. In particular, most of the evidence about who studied with whom and where is to be found there.\r\n\r\nUnfortunately, by far the larger of two collections of excerpts in Photius (codd. 181 and 242), by whom most of the surviving contents have been preserved, comes from a particularly scrappy part of his work, so that we often do not know which snippets should be taken together, a point that affects, among other things, an important question about Ammonius.\r\n\r\nTwo works that do survive and give us some further help are Zacharias\u2019 Life of Severus, from which, though it concentrates on Christians, we can learn something about conditions in the schools of Alexandria as well as about their students and teachers, and the same writer\u2019s dialogue Ammonius, which provides rather less than its title might lead one to hope, being concerned primarily with matters in dispute between pagans and Christians, such as the eternity of the world and the creative activity of God. It tells us very little about Ammonius but does raise a question of some importance about his beliefs, with which we must deal below.\r\n\r\nAt an earlier period, Marinus\u2019 Life of Proclus, a document often distorted by the desire to fit biographical facts to philosophical notions, gives us some information about others who worked at Athens and are part of the story of Aristotelian commentary\u2014namely, Plutarch and Syrianus, who, Marinus tells us, were respectively master and pupil, as well as both being teachers of Proclus. In addition, he mentions persons about whom he gives us little or no other information, such as Plutarch\u2019s grandson Archiadas and Proclus\u2019 contemporary Domninus. Unfortunately, the Life does not proceed in chronological order because its structure depends on a framework of the Neoplatonic scale of virtues and Proclus\u2019 ascent to its summit.\r\n\r\nIn addition to what these sources provide, we have pieces of more or less incidental information from elsewhere, some of it not unimportant. Such are the dates infrequently given en passant in the commentaries and the occasional references to philosophy in both contemporary and later historians. Some of these references are notoriously difficult to interpret or even simply unreliable. In this category are the details of the exile of 529 and the possible return from it. In addition, there are entries in or from the lexica and other compilations so popular in late Classical antiquity and early Byzantine culture; some of these overlap both with each other and with the material found in Photius.\r\n\r\nThere are some figures in the tradition of Aristotelian commentary about whom we know almost nothing. Such are Asclepius, the editor of Ammonius\u2019 Metaphysics course, at least for Books A-Z, Olympiodorus in the next generation, and his presumed pupil Elias. His\u2014probably\u2014contemporary David is well known in the Armenian tradition but not in the Greek. The last three, as it happens, are all later than the last surviving Life of a philosopher.\r\n\r\nOne of the perversities of the distribution of information is that we are often better informed about those whose work has been lost but was clearly important in the tradition, like Plutarch, and even those whose work has been lost and may not have been important in the interpretation of either the Platonic or the Aristotelian writings in any case, like Isidore, than about the authors of considerable parts of our corpus of texts, like Ammonius and Simplicius.\r\n\r\nLet us now go back to the beginning and look at what we do know about those who contributed to the exposition of the De Anima, leaving aside Plotinus, whose contribution was the more general one of integrating Aristotelian psychology into Neoplatonic philosophy and about whose life we are reasonably well, if somewhat sporadically, informed.\r\n\r\nWe can say that Iamblichus, the initiator of the organization of the Neoplatonists\u2019 Aristotle and Plato course, and perhaps their Aristotle course as well, probably did not write a De Anima commentary, a matter we shall return to shortly, but Ps-Simplicius claims to follow the guidance he offered in his own treatise on the soul.\r\n\r\nSince, however, most of that has been lost, and Ps-Simplicius\u2019 De Anima commentary notoriously fails to provide the extensive documentation and specific attributions found in the other Simplicius commentaries, we can assess neither the real extent nor the specific details of Iamblichus\u2019 influence. That situation contrasts with what obtains in the case of their Categories commentaries: while in this case Iamblichus\u2019 commentary is lost, Simplicius refers to it constantly by name.\r\n\r\nIt is worth mentioning that Proclus does the same in his Timaeus commentary, showing that Iamblichus\u2019 lead was followed by at least some\u2014perhaps avoiding at this stage adding \"Athenians\"\u2014at both ends of the combined Aristotle and Plato course. Nevertheless, the combination of Ps-Simplicius\u2019 expression of intent in the De Anima commentary and what actually happens in other commentaries suggests that Iamblichus\u2019 influence on the exposition of the De Anima will not have been negligible.\r\n\r\nIts extent may or may not have been greater because of his place early in the story: though his exact dates cannot be established, they fall in the second half of the third century and the beginning of the fourth, making it possible that he was actually a pupil of Porphyry, as later writers assert\u2014an assertion that must, however, be treated with some care because of the notorious habit of ancient biographers and doxographers of arranging philosophers in chains of master-pupil relations, a habit that affects the whole history of Greek philosophy from Thales to the end.\r\n\r\nAfter Iamblichus, there is a gap in the history of Platonism and also of Aristotelian exposition. The latter is, however, partly filled by the anomalous figure of Themistius, partly because of the very anomaly that consists in his being a Peripatetic and standing outside the mainstream of philosophical development, which was by now almost entirely Platonist.\r\n\r\nThemistius differs from the other commentators in another respect too. Most of them were, as far as we know, the equivalent of professional philosophers today, producing philosophical research while earning their living by teaching, subsidized perhaps, in the case of those Neoplatonists working at Athens, by the Academy\u2019s funds, from whatever source these came.\r\n\r\nThemistius, on the other hand, was a diplomat and politician whose interest in Aristotle might be thought of as loosely analogous to Gladstone\u2019s in Homer. The commentaries were written early in his life, and there is no evidence that he ever returned to actual study of Aristotle, nor that he ever taught philosophy. Nor is there any evidence that will withstand scrutiny that he ever wrote on Plato, great as his admiration for him was. [introduction p. 35-38]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GBYzMZ4X3Nt0hsI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1449,"section_of":213,"pages":"35-51","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":213,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the \"De Anima\"","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Steven Strange: Emory University Scholars have traditionally used the Aristotelian commentators as sources for lost philosophical works and occasionally also as aids to understanding Aristotle. In H. J. Blumenthal's view, however, the commentators often assumed that there was a Platonist philosophy to which not only they but Aristotle himself subscribed. Their expository writing usually expressed their versions of Neoplatonist philosophy. Blumenthal here places the commentators in their intellectual and historical contexts, identifies their philosophical views, and demonstrates their tendency to read Aristotle as if he were a member of their philosophical circle.This book focuses on the commentators' exposition of Aristotle's treatise De anima (On the Soul), because it is relatively well documented and because the concept of soul was so important in all Neoplatonic systems. Blumenthal explains how the Neoplatonizing of Aristotle's thought, as well as the widespread use of the commentators' works, influenced the understanding of Aristotle in both the Islamic and Judaeo-Christian traditions.H. J. Blumenthal is the author or coeditor of six previous books and is currently preparing a two-volume translation, with introduction and commentary, of Simplicius' Commentary on \"De anima\" for publication in Cornell's series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VOUUZIIp0rHNG0V","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":213,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The commentators: their identity and their background"]}

The writings of the De anima commentators, 1996
By: Blumenthal, Henry J., Blumenthal, Henry J. (Ed.)
Title The writings of the De anima commentators
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1996
Published in Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the "De Anima"
Pages 53-71
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Editor(s) Blumenthal, Henry J.
Translator(s)
So far we have discussed the work of our commentators as if it was 
simply scholarship  and  philosophical exposition,  whether of their own 
philosophy or that of Aristotle which most of them held to be fundamen­
tally the same. There is, however, another aspect of the commentaries 
which, while not prominent, should not be forgotten. That is the way in 
which doing such work was an integral part of a life aimed at the greatest 
possible degree of return to that higher reality from which the commenta­
tors  saw  human  life  as  a  decline  and  separation.  It  is  becoming 
increasingly better understood that for the great majority of Greek philo­
sophers, philosophy was not only a way of thinking but a way of life.70 The 
late Neoplatonists  seem  to have gone  even further,  and  regarded  the 
production of commentaries as a kind of service to the divine, much as a 
Christian monk who engaged in scholarship would have seen it in that 
light So we find at the end of Simplicius’ commentary on the De caelo what 
can only be described as a prayer: ‘Oh lord and artificer of the universe 
and the simple bodies in it, to you and all that has been brought into being 
by you I offer this work as a hymn, being eager to see as a revelation the 
magnitude of your works and to proclaim it to those who are worthy, so 
that thinking no  mean  or mortal  thoughts  about  you  we  may  make 
obeisance to you in accordance with the high place you occupy in respect 
of all that is produced by you’ (731.25-9). Those who think that ancient 
philosophy ceased to be of interest some three and a half centuries before 
these words were written and who may from time to time consult Sim­
plicius for an opinion on the meaning of an Aristotelian text, are unlikely 
ever to see these words, or those that come at the end of the commentary 
on the Enckeiridion (138.22-3). Without them they cannot fully under­
stand the nature of works beyond whose surface they never penetrate, 
works whose very composition could be seen as an act of reverence to the 
gods of paganism. [Conclusion, p. 71]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"927","_score":null,"_source":{"id":927,"authors_free":[{"id":1371,"entry_id":927,"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":2527,"entry_id":927,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}}],"entry_title":"The writings of the De anima commentators","main_title":{"title":"The writings of the De anima commentators"},"abstract":"So far we have discussed the work of our commentators as if it was \r\nsimply scholarship and philosophical exposition, whether of their own \r\nphilosophy or that of Aristotle which most of them held to be fundamen\u00ad\r\ntally the same. There is, however, another aspect of the commentaries \r\nwhich, while not prominent, should not be forgotten. That is the way in \r\nwhich doing such work was an integral part of a life aimed at the greatest \r\npossible degree of return to that higher reality from which the commenta\u00ad\r\ntors saw human life as a decline and separation. It is becoming \r\nincreasingly better understood that for the great majority of Greek philo\u00ad\r\nsophers, philosophy was not only a way of thinking but a way of life.70 The \r\nlate Neoplatonists seem to have gone even further, and regarded the \r\nproduction of commentaries as a kind of service to the divine, much as a \r\nChristian monk who engaged in scholarship would have seen it in that \r\nlight So we find at the end of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the De caelo what \r\ncan only be described as a prayer: \u2018Oh lord and artificer of the universe \r\nand the simple bodies in it, to you and all that has been brought into being \r\nby you I offer this work as a hymn, being eager to see as a revelation the \r\nmagnitude of your works and to proclaim it to those who are worthy, so \r\nthat thinking no mean or mortal thoughts about you we may make \r\nobeisance to you in accordance with the high place you occupy in respect \r\nof all that is produced by you\u2019 (731.25-9). Those who think that ancient \r\nphilosophy ceased to be of interest some three and a half centuries before \r\nthese words were written and who may from time to time consult Sim\u00ad\r\nplicius for an opinion on the meaning of an Aristotelian text, are unlikely \r\never to see these words, or those that come at the end of the commentary \r\non the Enckeiridion (138.22-3). Without them they cannot fully under\u00ad\r\nstand the nature of works beyond whose surface they never penetrate, \r\nworks whose very composition could be seen as an act of reverence to the \r\ngods of paganism. [Conclusion, p. 71]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OwPB7ahnasyI8P2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":927,"section_of":213,"pages":"53-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":213,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the \"De Anima\"","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Steven Strange: Emory University Scholars have traditionally used the Aristotelian commentators as sources for lost philosophical works and occasionally also as aids to understanding Aristotle. In H. J. Blumenthal's view, however, the commentators often assumed that there was a Platonist philosophy to which not only they but Aristotle himself subscribed. Their expository writing usually expressed their versions of Neoplatonist philosophy. Blumenthal here places the commentators in their intellectual and historical contexts, identifies their philosophical views, and demonstrates their tendency to read Aristotle as if he were a member of their philosophical circle.This book focuses on the commentators' exposition of Aristotle's treatise De anima (On the Soul), because it is relatively well documented and because the concept of soul was so important in all Neoplatonic systems. Blumenthal explains how the Neoplatonizing of Aristotle's thought, as well as the widespread use of the commentators' works, influenced the understanding of Aristotle in both the Islamic and Judaeo-Christian traditions.H. J. Blumenthal is the author or coeditor of six previous books and is currently preparing a two-volume translation, with introduction and commentary, of Simplicius' Commentary on \"De anima\" for publication in Cornell's series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VOUUZIIp0rHNG0V","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":213,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The writings of the De anima commentators"]}

Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More, 1998
By: Schenkeveld, Dirk M., Van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. (Ed.)
Title Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1998
Published in Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources
Pages 67-80
Categories no categories
Author(s) Schenkeveld, Dirk M.
Editor(s) Van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.
Translator(s)
In the list of Theophrastus’ works on rhetoric and poetics as given in 
the new collection under 666 FHS&G one finds twenty-four items, 
some of them (2 and 17) subdivided into (a) and (b). Most of these titles 
come from the list of Theophrastus’ works in Diogenes Laertius 5.42- 
50. In all but five cases (2, 6,17, 22 and 23, the last two on comedy and 
on the ludicrous respectively), Diogenes is our only source for them. 
The responsible editor, W. W. Fortenbaugh, also refers to several titles 
of works which other scholars had placed in the group of rhetorical trea­
tises, but his classification is different. This variation is explained by the 
fact that Diogenes’ list does not give any indication of the type of work 
to which any title belongs, which leaves scholars free to devise their 
own arrangement.In what follows I will discuss the place or the wording of a few titles, 
and especially that of 17b, thereby focusing on the nature and contents 
of 683 FHS&G. The editors have declined to arrange the fragments ac­
cording to known works (cp. vol. I, pp. 7-8). Nevertheless, I will argue, 
even by their arrangement of the titles they  sometimes  suggest too 
much, or too little. [Introduction, p. 67]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1038","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1038,"authors_free":[{"id":1573,"entry_id":1038,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":397,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schenkeveld, Dirk M.","free_first_name":"Dirk M.","free_last_name":"Schenkeveld","norm_person":{"id":397,"first_name":"Dirk M.","last_name":"Schenkeveld","full_name":"Schenkeveld, Dirk M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119331691","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1574,"entry_id":1038,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"Van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More"},"abstract":"In the list of Theophrastus\u2019 works on rhetoric and poetics as given in \r\nthe new collection under 666 FHS&G one finds twenty-four items, \r\nsome of them (2 and 17) subdivided into (a) and (b). Most of these titles \r\ncome from the list of Theophrastus\u2019 works in Diogenes Laertius 5.42- \r\n50. In all but five cases (2, 6,17, 22 and 23, the last two on comedy and \r\non the ludicrous respectively), Diogenes is our only source for them. \r\nThe responsible editor, W. W. Fortenbaugh, also refers to several titles \r\nof works which other scholars had placed in the group of rhetorical trea\u00ad\r\ntises, but his classification is different. This variation is explained by the \r\nfact that Diogenes\u2019 list does not give any indication of the type of work \r\nto which any title belongs, which leaves scholars free to devise their \r\nown arrangement.In what follows I will discuss the place or the wording of a few titles, \r\nand especially that of 17b, thereby focusing on the nature and contents \r\nof 683 FHS&G. The editors have declined to arrange the fragments ac\u00ad\r\ncording to known works (cp. vol. I, pp. 7-8). Nevertheless, I will argue, \r\neven by their arrangement of the titles they sometimes suggest too \r\nmuch, or too little. [Introduction, p. 67]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kt2zxAT8hYImXQS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":397,"full_name":"Schenkeveld, Dirk M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1038,"section_of":1298,"pages":"67-80","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More"]}

Uno stoico di età giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto, 1996
By: Conca, Fabrizio (Ed.), Cortassa, Guido
Title Uno stoico di età giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto
Type Book Section
Language Italian
Date 1996
Published in Byzantina Mediolanensia, Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Bizantini (Milano, 19- 22 ottobre 1994)
Pages 107-116
Categories no categories
Author(s) , Cortassa, Guido
Editor(s) Conca, Fabrizio
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1472","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1472,"authors_free":[{"id":2547,"entry_id":1472,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":541,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Conca, Fabrizio","free_first_name":"Fabrizio","free_last_name":"Conca","norm_person":{"id":541,"first_name":"Fabrizio","last_name":"Conca","full_name":"Conca, Fabrizio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157349595","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2548,"entry_id":1472,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":542,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cortassa, Guido","free_first_name":"Guido","free_last_name":"Cortassa","norm_person":{"id":542,"first_name":"Guido","last_name":"Cortassa","full_name":"Cortassa, Guido","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Uno stoico di et\u00e0 giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto","main_title":{"title":"Uno stoico di et\u00e0 giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8BwDS59793lFKd2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":541,"full_name":"Conca, Fabrizio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":542,"full_name":"Cortassa, Guido","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1472,"section_of":1471,"pages":"107-116","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1471,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"it","title":"Byzantina Mediolanensia, Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Bizantini (Milano, 19- 22 ottobre 1994)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Conca1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4FIpP1ncE8R5FJL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1471,"pubplace":"Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro)","publisher":"","series":"Medioevo romanzo e orientale. Colloqui","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Uno stoico di et\u00e0 giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1