{"_index":"sire","_id":"700","_score":null,"_source":{"id":700,"authors_free":[{"id":1040,"entry_id":700,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}}],"entry_title":"Mathematik und Ph\u00e4nomene. Eine Polemik \u00fcber naturwissenschaftliche Methode bei Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Mathematik und Ph\u00e4nomene. Eine Polemik \u00fcber naturwissenschaftliche Methode bei Simplikios"},"abstract":"Im Hinblick auf die grundlegende Verschiedenheit zwischen der platoni\u00adschen und aristotelischen Wertung der Mathematik und der Ph\u00e4nomene kann man erwarten, da\u00df es genau im Kontext der platonischen Deutung der aristo\u00adtelischen Schriften zu einer interessanten Auseinandersetzung kommen mu\u00dfte. \r\nEin gutes Beispiel ist der Kommentar des Neuplatonikers Simplikios (t\u00e4tig nach 530 n.Chr.) zur aristotelischen Schrift \u00dcber den Himmel. Wie bekannt, hat uns Simplikios in diesem Kommentar wichtige Informationen \u00fcber die \r\nAstronomie und die einschl\u00e4gige Wissenschaftstheorie bis auf seine Zeit, das \r\n6. Jahrhundert nach Christus, \u00fcberliefert. Hier werde ich mich mit zwei wichti\u00adgen methodischen Fragen befassen, die von Simplikios er\u00f6rtert werden. Er\u00adstens: Was ist die Erkl\u00e4rungskraft der mathematischen Prinzipien im physi\u00adschen Bereich? und zweitens: Was ist die erkenntnistheoretische Bedeutung \r\nder Ph\u00e4nomene? In einem letzten Abschnitt werde ich mich kurz dem Einflu\u00df der neuplatonischen Aristotelesdeutung auf das moderne Verstehen der aristo\u00adtelischen Methodologie zuwenden. [from the introduction, p. 110]","btype":3,"date":"2000","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/omuK2yp1p7YceKI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":700,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"107\u2013129"}},"sort":[2000]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1060","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1060,"authors_free":[{"id":1609,"entry_id":1060,"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}}],"entry_title":"Traces d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur la M\u00e9taphysique \u00e0 Byzance?","main_title":{"title":"Traces d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur la M\u00e9taphysique \u00e0 Byzance?"},"abstract":"Concluons. \u00c9tant donn\u00e9 que :\r\n\r\n la mention de Simplicius dans le Parisinus graecus 1853 est unique,\r\n son argument contredit les th\u00e9ories aristot\u00e9liciennes,\r\n son argument contredit l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation qu\u2019en donne Simplicius,\r\n son argument contredit les th\u00e9ories de Damascius et de Jamblique,\r\n sa conclusion est renferm\u00e9e dans une paraphrase connue de In Phys.,\r\n\r\nnous sommes contraints de rejeter l\u2019id\u00e9e, pourtant assez s\u00e9duisante, qu\u2019il pouvait y avoir des traces d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique dans le monde byzantin. Les \u00e9rudits savaient tout au plus que l\u2019auteur du commentaire au De anima, qu\u2019ils pensaient \u00eatre Simplicius, en avait \u00e9crit un. [conclusion p. 284]","btype":3,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ckn1Q6xi6bdiKcz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1060,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de sciences philosophiques et th\u00e9ologiques","volume":"84","issue":"","pages":"275\u2013284"}},"sort":[2000]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"886","_score":null,"_source":{"id":886,"authors_free":[{"id":1305,"entry_id":886,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":218,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kotzia-Panteli, Paraskeve","free_first_name":"Paraskeve","free_last_name":"Kotzia-Panteli","norm_person":{"id":218,"first_name":"Paraskeve","last_name":"Kotzia-Panteli","full_name":"Kotzia-Panteli, Paraskeve ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1171363621","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u0395\u039d\u039d\u039fH\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u0399\u039a\u039f\u03a3 und \u039f\u03a5\u03a3\u0399\u03a9\u0394\u0397\u03a3 \u039b\u039f\u0393\u039f\u03a3 als exegetisches Begriffspaar","main_title":{"title":"\u0395\u039d\u039d\u039fH\u039c\u0391\u03a4\u0399\u039a\u039f\u03a3 und \u039f\u03a5\u03a3\u0399\u03a9\u0394\u0397\u03a3 \u039b\u039f\u0393\u039f\u03a3 als exegetisches Begriffspaar"},"abstract":"Ziel der vorliegenden Untersuchung ist es, ausgehend von zwei Texten, der Herkunft und Funktion des Begriffspaares \"enno\u00e9smatikos\" und \"ousi\u00f3d\u00e9s logos\" nachzugehen, das gebraucht wird, um zwei grunds\u00e4tzliche Definitionsarten zu charakterisieren [authors abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2000","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/H34bvyQPUF08vgR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":218,"full_name":"Kotzia-Panteli, Paraskeve ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":886,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Philologus","volume":"144","issue":"1","pages":"45-61"}},"sort":[2000]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1303","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1303,"authors_free":[{"id":1926,"entry_id":1303,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":90,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Destr\u00e9e","norm_person":{"id":90,"first_name":"Pierre ","last_name":"Destr\u00e9e","full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1085171485","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La Communaut\u00e9 de l'\u00eatre (Parm\u00e9nide, fragment B 5)","main_title":{"title":"La Communaut\u00e9 de l'\u00eatre (Parm\u00e9nide, fragment B 5)"},"abstract":"This text discusses different interpretations of the methodological significance of the fragment D.K. B 5 of Parmenides' poem, which states \"It is indifferent to me where I begin, for I shall come back again to this point\" (Trad. M. Conche). The main question is what the statement refers to and its place in the order of fragments. Two main trends of interpretation are identified, one proposing to place the fragment before D.K. B 8 and the other suggesting to read it either before or after D.K. B 2. The author argues that the circularity of Parmenides' philosophy is centered around the concept of being and the experience of the community of being. The world of Parmenides is a world of trust and confidence in being, where even absent things find a real presence and firm consistency.\r\n[introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y9Q3j9lUXfO31vz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":90,"full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1303,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"18","issue":"1","pages":"3-13"}},"sort":[2000]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1478","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1478,"authors_free":[{"id":2559,"entry_id":1478,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":547,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sol\u00e8re, Jean-Luc","free_first_name":"Jean-Luc","free_last_name":"Sol\u00e8re","norm_person":{"id":547,"first_name":"Jean-Luc","last_name":"Sol\u00e8re","full_name":"Sol\u00e8re, Jean-Luc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/103699290X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: Ammonius, On Aristotle On Interpretation 1-8. Translated by David Blank. Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 2. Translated by Barrie Fleet. Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 5. Translated by J. O. Urmson, notes by Peter Lautner","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Ammonius, On Aristotle On Interpretation 1-8. Translated by David Blank. Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 2. Translated by Barrie Fleet. Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 5. Translated by J. O. Urmson, notes by Peter Lautner"},"abstract":"\u00c0 la collection dirig\u00e9e par R. Sorabji, sont venus s'ajouter les trois volumes ici signal\u00e9s. Comme le remarque un des traducteurs, Simplicius n'est pas toujours plus clair qu'Aristote. Mais ces textes sont d'in\u00e9puisables mines d'information pour l'\u00e9tude de la philosophie antique, et ces traductions accompagn\u00e9es de notes sont de pr\u00e9cieux instruments.\r\n\r\nOn remarquera sp\u00e9cialement, dans le commentaire du livre II de la Physique, les discussions sur la diff\u00e9rence entre nature et \u00e2me, sur l'intelligence des animaux ; dans le commentaire du livre V, celle sur le changement dans les cat\u00e9gories autres que substance, qualit\u00e9, quantit\u00e9 et lieu.\r\n\r\nQuant \u00e0 Ammonius, nous poss\u00e9dons nombre de reflets de son enseignement oral (apo ph\u00f4n\u00eas) dans les transcriptions effectu\u00e9es par ses \u00e9l\u00e8ves des explications d'autres ouvrages d'Aristote, mais celle du P\u00e9ri Hermeneias est le seul des commentaires du ma\u00eetre alexandrin, \u00e0 nous parvenu, qui soit de sa propre main. Il n'a donc pas les caract\u00e8res un peu m\u00e9caniques de la lecture scolaire (skholia), mais poss\u00e8de une \u00e9laboration litt\u00e9raire plus pouss\u00e9e (celle qui convient aux hupomn\u00eamata).\r\n\r\nCependant, Ammonius, fils d'Hermeias, doit sans doute le fond de son interpr\u00e9tation \u00e0 l'enseignement qu'il a re\u00e7u \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes de son propre professeur, Proclus, dont il aurait r\u00e9dig\u00e9 les le\u00e7ons comme feront ses disciples pour les siennes. Cette transmission scolaire \u00e9tait aussi une affaire de famille, car la m\u00e8re d'Ammonius, Aedesia, \u00e9tait une parente de Syrianus, le ma\u00eetre de Proclus et d'Hermeias. Cela n'emp\u00eache pas une distance critique, puisque les vues de Syrianus sur la n\u00e9gation ind\u00e9termin\u00e9e sont r\u00e9fut\u00e9es.\r\n\r\nN\u00e9anmoins, son commentaire est directement utile pour l'explication du chapitre 14, g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement omis parce que consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme inauthentique, au moins depuis Porphyre. Le commentaire de ce dernier, justement, a jou\u00e9 aussi un grand r\u00f4le dans l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des n\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs. Bien que perdu, des passages peuvent \u00eatre reconstitu\u00e9s par recoupement avec le commentaire de Bo\u00e8ce, qui en d\u00e9pend aussi.\r\n\r\n\u00c9tant donn\u00e9 que Porphyre citait non seulement des interpr\u00e8tes d'Aristote comme Alexandre d'Aphrodise, mais aussi des trait\u00e9s sto\u00efciens, l'entreprise est d'importance pour l'histoire de la s\u00e9mantique et de la logique. Le commentaire d'Ammonius est conduit du point de vue n\u00e9oplatonicien, qui postule une harmonie entre les philosophies d'Aristote et de Platon. C'est ici aussi une gageure, puisque pour le Stagirite les noms sont impos\u00e9s par convention, alors que d'apr\u00e8s le Cratyle, le fondement de leur signification est naturel.\r\n\r\nConform\u00e9ment aux r\u00e8gles de la collection, on trouve dans chaque volume des glossaires grec-anglais et anglais-grec, un index des passages cit\u00e9s et un index verborum. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CoYcyNe9f3pbpI7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":547,"full_name":"Sol\u00e8re, Jean-Luc","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1478,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue Philosophique de Louvain Ann\u00e9e","volume":"98","issue":"2","pages":"358-359"}},"sort":[2000]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"429","_score":null,"_source":{"id":429,"authors_free":[{"id":579,"entry_id":429,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Impetus Theory and the Hermeneutics of Science in Simplicius and Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Impetus Theory and the Hermeneutics of Science in Simplicius and Philoponus"},"abstract":"Let me come to a conclusion: In the first part of this paper I claimed that \r\nhistorians o f science do and should inquire into the context o f origin of past \r\nphilosophical theories, not only into the context of the validity (1). Three \r\ndifferent attempts to explain the innovative character o f John Philoponus' \r\nphilosophy were discussed; all were flawed by the fact that they sought an \r\nexplanation by means o f external historiography: in religion, biography and \r\neconomic circumstances (II). In the main part o f this paper attention was drawn to the striking difference between the presuppositions at work in \r\nSimplicius\u2019 and Philoponus' respective hermeneutics o f science (111). I have \r\nargued that Philoponus was able to liberate his mind in an unprecedented way \r\nfrom the constraints of the Neoplatonists' commitment to harmony, authority \r\nand salvation through philosophy. Philoponus\u2019 alternative heuristic method, \r\ntermed constructive criticism, was then identified as perhaps the most im\u00ad\r\nportant driving force behind his scientific innovations (IV). I should like to \r\nconclude with the general recommendation that anyone who is interested in \r\nelucidating the origin o f philosophical-scientific ideas and controversies, be \r\nit o f the sixth century or at any other time, might find it more fruitful to study \r\ncarefully the methodological presuppositions involved, be they hermeneutic, \r\nempirical, or speculative, rather than to gesture all too readily to external \r\nparameters like religion, anecdotes, or the socio-economics of the market \r\nplace. [conclusion p. 123-124]","btype":3,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/H1d8bA0zFyyKAUN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":429,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hyperboreus","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"107\u2013124"}},"sort":[1999]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"547","_score":null,"_source":{"id":547,"authors_free":[{"id":771,"entry_id":547,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":114,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Flannery, Kevin L.","free_first_name":"Kevin L.","free_last_name":"Flannery","norm_person":{"id":114,"first_name":"Kevin L.","last_name":"Flannery","full_name":"Flannery, Kevin L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/104462485X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Synonymy of Homonyms","main_title":{"title":"The Synonymy of Homonyms"},"abstract":"Is the homonym-synonym paradox important enough to force this emen\u00addation? I think that it is. If considering the two definitions in conjunction -the definition of homonyms and that of synonyms - it turns out that homo\u00adnyms qua homonyms are not homonyms and, therefore, that only qua not homonyms are homonyms homonyms, that is a problem. We can resolve the paradox by breaking the conjunction - i. e., by severing the interdepen\u00addence between the two definitions by eliminating tas ouisas from the first. Would Aristotle have anticipated the paradox and set out his definitions so as to avoid it? We do not have to go so far. We need only believe that, when initially conceiving Cat. i, he had a consistent set of ideas in mind. That is, we need only believe that he had in mind a position that would not lead to the type of problems that typically arise when two definitions are interdependent. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7UMy6i0NWqhhPbZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":114,"full_name":"Flannery, Kevin L.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":547,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"81","issue":"","pages":"268\u2013289"}},"sort":[1999]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"838","_score":null,"_source":{"id":838,"authors_free":[{"id":1242,"entry_id":838,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":366,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Yavetz, Ido","free_first_name":"Ido","free_last_name":"Yavetz","norm_person":{"id":366,"first_name":" Ido","last_name":"Yavetz","full_name":"Yavetz, Ido","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1156978416","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On the Homocentric Spheres of Eudoxus","main_title":{"title":"On the Homocentric Spheres of Eudoxus"},"abstract":"In 1877, Schiaparelli published a classic essay on the homocentric spheres of Eu- \r\ndoxus. In the years that followed, it became the standard, definitive historical reconstruc- \r\ntion of Eudoxian planetary theory. The purpose of this paper is to show that the two texts \r\non which Schiaparelli based his reconstruction do not lead in an unequivocal way to \r\nthis interpretation, and that they actually accommodate alternative and equally plausible \r\ninterpretations that possess a clear astronomical superiority compared to Schiaparelli's. One should not mistake all of this for a call to reject Schiaparelli's interpretation in favor \r\nof the new one. In particular, the alternative interpretation does not recommend itself as a \r\nhistorically more plausible basis for reconstructing Eudoxus's and Callippus's planetary theories merely because of its astronomical advantages. It does, however, suggest that \r\nthe exclusivity traditionally awarded to Schiaparelli's reconstruction can no longer be \r\nmaintained, and that the little historical evidence we do possess does not enable us to \r\nmake a justifiable choice between the available alternatives. [Introduction, p. 221]","btype":3,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yDxuUa8nKX7GLiW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":366,"full_name":"Yavetz, Ido","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":838,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","volume":"52","issue":"3","pages":"221-278"}},"sort":[1998]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1287","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1287,"authors_free":[{"id":1876,"entry_id":1287,"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}}],"entry_title":"La saisie des principes physiques chez Aristote. Simplicius contre Alexandre d'Aphrodise","main_title":{"title":"La saisie des principes physiques chez Aristote. Simplicius contre Alexandre d'Aphrodise"},"abstract":"The article discusses Aristotle's treatment of knowledge of the principles of natural beings in his Physics, focusing on the process of induction and the contradictions in his approach. The author argues that the discovery of principles through analysis and empirical generalization is based on sensory data, and suggests that the autonomy of physical discourse was a contested issue among commentators. The article highlights divergences in interpretation regarding the existence of physical principles and discusses variations in the manuscript tradition. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hlMzWTGqkFNEImc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":61,"full_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1287,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oriens-Occidens","volume":"2","issue":"","pages":"77-94"}},"sort":[1998]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1347","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1347,"authors_free":[{"id":2002,"entry_id":1347,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":167,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","free_first_name":"Wayne J.","free_last_name":"Hankey","norm_person":{"id":167,"first_name":" Wayne J.","last_name":"Hankey","full_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054015821","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: Simplicius, On Aristotle's Physics 5, translated by J.O.Urmson, notes by Peter Lautner. The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Simplicius, On Aristotle's Physics 5, translated by J.O.Urmson, notes by Peter Lautner. The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle"},"abstract":"This welcome volume is yet another in the important series The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle. Edited by Richard Sorabji, about 30 volumes have now been published (they are not numbered). As in all the volumes, Sorabji\u2019s General Introduction is reprinted as an appendix (pp. 151-160), though its accompanying lists, both of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, in the Berlin edition of Hermann Diels, and of English translations of the ancient commentators, are found only in the first of the translations: Philoponus, Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World (1987).\r\n\r\nUniformly with the series, there are, as well as the translation (here in 110 pages), a short introduction (here in two parts: one by Peter Lautner, who did the notes, and the other by J.O. Urmson, who translated the text), a list of textual emendations, extensive notes (305 in fact, compensating for the shortness of the introduction), an English-Greek glossary, a Greek-English index, and indices of names and subjects.\r\n\r\nOther compensations for the regrettable shortness of the introduction are the affiliated publications from the Cornell University Press: Sorabji's Time, Creation and the Continuum (1983), his Matter, Space and Motion (1988), and the collections of articles Sorabji has edited: Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science (1987), Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence (1990). These are indispensable for negotiating Lautner\u2019s notes. Also useful on the Aristotelian tradition and the place of Simplicius in it is a new collection of articles edited by Sorabji but published by the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London in 1997: Aristotle and After.\r\n\r\nUnderstanding the character and significance of what Simplicius is doing here, especially of his very consequential modifications of Aristotle, requires consultation with excellent but inconvenient endnotes and with their references to this and other, less accessible, literature. As a result, In Physics 5 and its companion volumes are for well-formed scholars with first-class university libraries at their disposal.\r\n\r\nWith this volume, we near the completion within this series of the translation of Simplicius' enormous commentary on the Physics. It joins, of Simplicius, the Corollaries on Place and Time, On Aristotle On the Soul 1.1-2.4, and On Aristotle's Physics 2, 4, 6, 7; all of which have appeared since 1989. They manifest in the English-speaking world a renewed scholarly and philosophical interest in Simplicius, which has produced translations, editions, and research by American, Belgian, English, French, German, and Italian scholars. Their work and projects were collected in Simplicius: sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie (1987), edited by Ilsetraut Hadot. Indeed, a contributor to that collection, Leonardo Tar\u00e1n, promises us a new edition of the Greek text of the commentary on the Physics as well as another translation of it. Another contributor, Philippe Hoffmann, is reediting the commentary on the De Caelo.\r\n\r\nThe renewed labor on the commentaries is justified by those who undertake it. The first place to find this is in Sorabji's General Introduction, which, beyond indicating the influence of the Neoplatonic commentaries, calls them \"incomparable guides to Aristotle\" (p. 159). A claim he supports by reference to the \"minutely detailed knowledge of the entire Aristotelian corpus\" possessed and conveyed by the commentators.\r\n\r\nIn his article for the French colloque, Tar\u00e1n maintained that Simplicius' commentary on the Physics remains the best commentary on that work \"even today\" (p. 247). Since her Le Probl\u00e8me du N\u00e9oplatonisme Alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius (1978), Ilsetraut Hadot has defended Simplicius and the commentators of the Athenian Neoplatonic school from denigrating comparisons with the production of the Alexandrines. She demonstrates that Praechter was wrong in supposing the Alexandrian commentaries to have been more devoted to the vrai sens of Aristotle in contrast to their own Neoplatonic philosophical projects. In fact, the commentaries of both schools were produced within a tradition initiated by Porphyry and were required by the essential role Aristotle's writings played in teaching. The value of the commentary may be diminished by the service given to such Neoplatonic scholastic projects as the reconciliation of Plato and Aristotle, but Hadot\u2019s demonstrations elevate Simplicius by diminishing the preeminence given to the Alexandrines.\r\n\r\nIn a review in this journal (BMCR 97.9.24), Richard Todd produced good reasons for choosing, as the place to begin among the older scholarship on Aristotle, the Renaissance commentaries of Jacobus Zabarella or Julius Pacius, but still, he would have these Renaissance humanists bring readers back to Simplicius. By the Renaissance, his commentaries, lost to the Latins until the 13th century, were well known and highly respected.\r\n\r\nSo none will deny the enormous importance of Simplicius' commentary. Beyond its illumination of Aristotle, its application and defense of the Neoplatonic interpretative framework is skillful and creative. Moreover, it is the great treasury for our knowledge of previous Greek physics from the Pre-Socratics onward and of the commentaries before his own. Both of these he preserves by quotation, often at greater length than his argument requires, as if Simplicius, like Boethius, saw himself preserving a disappearing heritage in a darkening age. Much of In Physics 5 is a dialogue with Alexander of Aphrodisias, and enormous passages of his commentary are reproduced. They remind us of one of the essential tasks of scholarship that has only begun and will be assisted by this translation. Since so much of what we know about natural philosophy before Simplicius is dependent on him, we need to deepen our understanding of his thinking to consider how his selection and reproduction shape our knowledge of ancient philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe conservative labor was successful; evidently, the commentary of Simplicius survived and carried his past with it. In consequence, another reason for the great importance of this work is its influence. His understanding of Aristotle constituted an essential element in the thinking of the Arabic Neoplatonists and, from the 13th century on, his comments were communicated to the Latin West in their treatises and in their own commentaries on Aristotle's texts, as well as through direct translations from the Greek by Latins like William of Moerbeke. Thus, he reached the scholastics of the medieval West.\r\n\r\nThe conscientious continuation by Simplicius of the great Neoplatonic enterprise of reconciling Plato and Aristotle helped determine the Latin understanding of Aristotle. Moreover, ideas of his own, developed in that context, became fruitful again as Aristotelian physics was transformed in the construction of modern natural philosophies.\r\n\r\nSimplicius was with Damascius and the other pagan philosophers who headed east after Justinian closed the Academy in Athens. He probably composed this, and his other Aristotelian commentaries, in the remote city of Harran (Carrhae). Whatever the activity of the philosophers gathered there, as distinct from his predecessors like Themistius or contemporaries like Philoponus the Christian, Simplicius' commentaries no longer show characteristics marking them as having been developed as lectures. Evidence points to composition after 538, and Peter Lautner shows that at least part of the commentary on the Physics was written before the commentary on the Categories.\r\n\r\nSimplicius assiduously carries forward the reconciliation of Aristotle with Plato. Whether, with Sorabji, we call this project \"perfectly crazy\" (p. 156), we will agree it stimulates Simplicius to his greatest creativity. Here the philosophical commentator is moved by his religion. Since Porphyry, and fervently with Iamblichus, Proclus, and their successors, piety in respect to the old gods demanded that the unity of that by which they revealed themselves and their cosmos be exhibited. Further, defending the Hellenic spiritual tradition against its critics and effectively marshaling its forces against the Christian enemy required this unification.\r\n\r\nSimplicius helps work through completely what the Neoplatonic reconciliations and unifications require. He assists with its momentous move from substance to subjectivity. For what it furthers and transmits in this greatest of Western transformations, his commentary is philosophically important. Those who have made it more accessible are to be thanked. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gUxdRzi2BGcl9jH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":167,"full_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1347,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bryn Mawr Classical Review","volume":"3","issue":"19","pages":""}},"sort":[1998]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"643","_score":null,"_source":{"id":643,"authors_free":[{"id":918,"entry_id":643,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aspects de la th\u00e9orie de la perception chez les n\u00e9oplatoniciens : sensation (\u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensation commune (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensibles communs (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac) et conscience de soi (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)","main_title":{"title":"Aspects de la th\u00e9orie de la perception chez les n\u00e9oplatoniciens : sensation (\u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensation commune (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensibles communs (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac) et conscience de soi (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)"},"abstract":"Je r\u00e9sume : en ce qui concerne la possibilit\u00e9 pour les sensations d'avoir conscience de leur activit\u00e9, Pseudo-Philopon se distingue aussi bien de Priscien que de Simplicius, puisqu\u2019il n'attribue plus le moindre r\u00f4le \u00e0 la sensation commune, mais accorde ce privil\u00e8ge \u00e0 une facult\u00e9 de l'\u00e2me raisonnable, \u00e0 la facult\u00e9 d'attention. [conclusion p. 85]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/N9wzp13Ul2KftSa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":643,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"33\u201385"}},"sort":[1997]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"698","_score":null,"_source":{"id":698,"authors_free":[{"id":1038,"entry_id":698,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?","main_title":{"title":"Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?"},"abstract":"The historian Agathias (Hist. II 30.3-31.4) relates that under the Emperor Justinian seven philosophers (Damascius, Simplicius, Eulamius, Priscianus, Hermeias, Diogenes, and Isidorus) sought refuge in Persia because of their own country\u2019s anti-pagan laws but that they ultimately returned in 532 to the Roman Empire. There have been many hypotheses about the fate of these philosophers after their return. Most recently M. Tardieu has argued that these philosophers went to Harran, a town that was located on the Persian frontier and that remained mostly pagan until the tenth century. This hypothesis, which M. Tardieu had backed with a number of arguments, has found many echoes, both positive and negative, in subsequent secondary literature. Yet the complexity of the issue has never really been faced by Tardieu\u2019s critics. For example, the fact that, according to Arab sources, Simplicius could found a famous school of mathematics has been completely neglected, as has the fact that details of the dogmas of Manicheanism, which he obtained through his encounter with a member of that sect, enable one to envision a Mesopotamian locale for this encounter. The present study aims at taking stock of the elements of this controversy, beginning with a detailed article by D. Watts and a review by C. Luna. Watts mostly bases his criticisms of M. Tardieu and me on Luna\u2019s summary. In the conclusion (pages 58-59), I summarize the main points that seem to me to confirm M. Tardieu\u2019s hypothesis. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WI7RiFFpXjaRVSX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":698,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"42\u2013107"}},"sort":[1997]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1082","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1082,"authors_free":[{"id":1637,"entry_id":1082,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M. ","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M. ","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias on Celestial Motions","main_title":{"title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias on Celestial Motions"},"abstract":"A number of features of the doctrine of Alexander of Aphrodisias on heavenly motions are beyond reasonable doubt. First and foremost of these is \r\nthat he identified the nature of the heavenly spheres with their soul, thereby he could entirely collapse natural motion with voluntary motion into one in their case. Moreover the celestial element, which Alexander tends to call theion s\u00f4ma, divine body is removed from the components of \r\nthe everchanging sublunary world to the extent that it can be a legitimate question whether the substrate of celestial bodies can be called matter, and Alexander can refer to perishable entities as evIua, material in contrast to this sublime element. After identifying the contribution of the nature of the celestial spheres with that of their soul, Alexander follows \r\nAristotle in setting out a celestial hierarchy, on top of which there is or there are the separate unmoved mover(s), which move(s) by being object(s) of striving and desire for the less perfect entities of the heavens. This much seems to be firmly settled. A number of further issues, however, call for detailed examination. In this paper first I set out to clarify the contributions of the striving of the different celestial spheres, then I turn to describing the interaction between the various motions of the celestial system, and I discuss whether the theory Alexander propounded could have been a fundamental revision, or rather an alternative exposition of the original, Aristotelian celestial theory deploying homocentric spheres. [Introduction, p. 190-191]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FT5oXWdKEJGehLA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1082,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"42","issue":"2","pages":"190-205"}},"sort":[1997]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"895","_score":null,"_source":{"id":895,"authors_free":[{"id":1321,"entry_id":895,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Iamblichus as a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus as a Commentator"},"abstract":"Twenty-two years ago, when that growth in interest in Neoplatonism, which is a culmination of this conference, was only just getting underway, two large books appeared that will be familiar to all who are interested in Iamblichus. I am referring, of course, to J.M. Dillon's collection of the fragmentary remains of Iamblichus' commentaries on Plato's dialogues, supplied with an ample commentary to boot, and B. Dalsgaard Larsen's Jamblique de Chalcis: Ex\u00e9g\u00e8te et Philosophe, of which some 240 pages are devoted to his role as an exegete; a collection of exegetical fragments appeared as a 130-page appendix.\r\n\r\nLarsen's book covered the interpretation of both Plato and Aristotle and pre-empted a second volume of Dillon's, which was to deal with Aristotle. I mention these books because we are, inter alia, taking stock, and it is remarkable that not much attention has been paid since then to Iamblichus' role as a commentator. Perhaps they have had the same effect on the study of this aspect of Iamblichus as Proclus' work had on the interpretation of Plato at Alexandria.\r\n\r\nBe that as it may, I intend to look, not very originally, at Iamblichus' activities as a commentator on philosophical works\u2014and so I shall say nothing about the twenty-eight books or more of his lost commentary on the Chaldaean Oracles\u2014and also to say something, in the manner of core samples, about how his expositions compare with those of the later commentators.\r\n\r\nThough the process can be traced back in part to Porphyry, I think it is safe to say that Iamblichus was the first Neoplatonist, at least of those about whom we are reasonably well informed, to set out systematically to write commentaries on the major works of both Plato and\u2014in Iamblichus' case to a lesser extent\u2014Aristotle too.\r\n\r\nThe fact that he did both is noteworthy, since most of his successors seem to have specialized, more or less, in one or the other in their published works, if not in their lecture courses. We are, as ever in this area, faced with difficulties about deciding who wrote what, which often amounts to making difficult decisions about the implications of the usual imprecise references that are commonplace in ancient commentary.\r\n\r\nThe best we have are those references which Simplicius, in his Physics commentary, gives to specific books or even chapters of Iamblichus' Timaeus and Categories commentaries (cf. In Aristotelis Physica Commentaria 639.23\u201324; in the second chapter of book 5 of the commentary on the Timaeus 786.11\u201312; in the first book of the commentary on the Categories). But that Iamblichus did write commentaries on both Plato and Aristotle can be regarded as firmly established.\r\n\r\nIt is tempting to think, though there is no text which allows us to demonstrate this, that his doing so was connected with the fact that it seems to have been he who set up the thereafter traditional course in which certain works of Aristotle were read as propaedeutic to a selection of twelve\u2014or rather ten plus two\u2014Platonic dialogues, which culminated in the study of the Timaeus and Parmenides.[introduction p. 1-2]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3m984P11hlUhV1x","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":895,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Syllecta \tClassica","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"1\u201313"}},"sort":[1997]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"872","_score":null,"_source":{"id":872,"authors_free":[{"id":1281,"entry_id":872,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":243,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lefebvre, Ren\u00e9 ","free_first_name":"Ren\u00e9 ","free_last_name":"Lefebvre","norm_person":{"id":243,"first_name":"Ren\u00e9","last_name":"Lefebvre","full_name":"Lefebvre, Ren\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136649084","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mati\u00e8re et r\u00e9solution : Anaxagore et ses interpr\u00e8tes","main_title":{"title":"Mati\u00e8re et r\u00e9solution : Anaxagore et ses interpr\u00e8tes"},"abstract":"Anaxagore est, dit-on, le plus difficile des pr\u00e9socratiques. La doctrine de la mati\u00e8re exerce une fascination toute particuli\u00e8re, ne serait-ce que pour cause d'\u00e9tat lacunaire des textes et sans doute de g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 de l'esquisse ; puis, par un effet d'entra\u00eenement, l'ampleur, la diversit\u00e9 et la qualit\u00e9 des r\u00e9actions herm\u00e9neutiques elles-m\u00eames g\u00e9n\u00e8rent un commentaire sans cesse recommenc\u00e9. On entend identifier, r\u00e9soudre, dissoudre des probl\u00e8mes, ou des pseudo-probl\u00e8mes projet\u00e9s par la tradition sur une \u0153uvre qui n'en peut mais.\r\n\r\nAnaxagore surtout fascine par la tension qu'engendrent certaines options doctrinales, l'essentiel \u00e9tant sur ce point le conflit entre une conception r\u00e9put\u00e9e hom\u00e9om\u00e9rique de la mati\u00e8re et le principe de \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1. La succession des interpr\u00e9tations a am\u00e9lior\u00e9 notre compr\u00e9hension de la philosophie du Clazom\u00e9nien ; cependant, nous ne savons plus toujours ni ce qu'il faut imputer \u00e0 cette derni\u00e8re, ni m\u00eame ce que nous n'y comprenons pas, et il nous arrive de confondre des questions diff\u00e9rentes : la division spatiale n'est pas la discrimination qualitative, tout \u00e9l\u00e9mentarisme n'est peut-\u00eatre pas corpusculariste, tout corpuscularisme n'est pas n\u00e9cessairement atomistique.\r\n\r\nLes r\u00e9flexions qui suivent se d\u00e9veloppent sur trois niveaux : la premi\u00e8re partie consiste en une pr\u00e9sentation minimale de la doctrine ; les notes entendent en faire ressortir les aspects probl\u00e9matiques, en indiquant les principales options herm\u00e9neutiques. Soucieuse de ne masquer ni les apories ni les paradoxes, la deuxi\u00e8me partie propose des clarifications et des distinctions qu'il faut prendre moins comme des indications mat\u00e9rielles sur la doctrine que comme des suggestions formelles \u00e0 destination du commentaire ult\u00e9rieur.\r\n\r\nLa notion de r\u00e9solution m'a paru la plus apte \u00e0 englober dans un cadre commun les discussions sur les puissances, les parties, les semences, les hom\u00e9om\u00e8res, l'infiniment petit, etc.\r\n[introduction p. 31-32]","btype":3,"date":"1996","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/X6EflTJBUsEaivP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":243,"full_name":"Lefebvre, Ren\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":872,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'\u00c9tranger","volume":"186","issue":"1","pages":"31-54"}},"sort":[1996]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"454","_score":null,"_source":{"id":454,"authors_free":[{"id":610,"entry_id":454,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":422,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"van der Ben, Nicolaas","free_first_name":"Nicolaas","free_last_name":"van der Ben","norm_person":{"id":422,"first_name":"Nicolaas","last_name":"van der Ben","full_name":"van der Ben, Nicolaas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles' Fragment 20 DK: Some Suggestions","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles' Fragment 20 DK: Some Suggestions"},"abstract":"It may be assumed that the way in which Empedocles' fragment 20.1 DK was edited by Diels has left many a reader dissatisfied (cf. notes 8, 9, 10, and 11). However, thanks to the discovery of 53 papyrus fragments of an Empedocles text by Professor A. Martin in the University Library of Strasbourg, some light may be dawning. The collection was acquired by the library as long ago as 1905 but had gone unnoticed. Alain Martin made his find public in a lecture given at Strasbourg on April 14th, 1994. I understand that the publication of all 53 fragments will not take place before the spring of 1996. But photographs of two tiny fragments were circulated by Martin, printed on the invitation to his lecture, one of which contains remnants of 20 DK. Another line was made available in the handout distributed to his audience on that memorable occasion. Hopefully, these two texts will help solve one or two textual problems in Empedocles and shed a ray of light on the Empedocles text used by Simplicius. [introduction p. 298]","btype":3,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bkukUWj7zxxEZPo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":422,"full_name":"van der Ben, Nicolaas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":454,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"49","issue":"3","pages":"298-320"}},"sort":[1996]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"847","_score":null,"_source":{"id":847,"authors_free":[{"id":1251,"entry_id":847,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":232,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Smith, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Smith","norm_person":{"id":232,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Smith","full_name":"Smith, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122322606","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Hagen, C. (tr.): Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 7","main_title":{"title":"Review of Hagen, C. (tr.): Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 7"},"abstract":"The seventh book of Aristotle's Physics was as problematic in antiquity as it is today. Modern scholars have found its place and role in the Physics as a whole difficult to define. Its content seems to be superseded by the apparently more cogent arguments of Book Eight for an unmoved mover. Eudemus seems to have rejected it as spurious, as his version of the Physics omitted this book, and Themistius omits the first chapter and skims over the rest. Alexander thought the arguments were rather formal, while Simplicius finds them weak. The latter, to whom we are indebted for much of our information about ancient attitudes toward the book, thought it was written earlier than Book Eight, which then replaced it.\r\n\r\nNone of this is simplified by the existence of two versions for at least the first three chapters. Nevertheless, Simplicius took the book seriously enough to write an 85-page commentary on it. Simplicius, in fact, frequently suggests the important contribution of the arguments in Book Seven to their continuation in Book Eight (cf. H., p. 103 n. 16, who also notes how Simplicius elsewhere refers to Book Seven rather than to Book Eight for the important theme of the mover). In this, Simplicius anticipates, in a way, the important recent work of Robert Wardy (The Chain of Change: A Study of Aristotle's Physics VII, Cambridge, 1990), who has reinstated the independent value of Book Seven as a preparation for the later book and not infrequently alludes to Simplicius.\r\n\r\nNot the least merit of H.'s notes is the full use he makes of Wardy's work. H.'s translation is marked by the care and clarity we have come to expect from this series. There are frequent pointers in the text to clarify the occurrence of Greek technical terms. This is aided by a full English-Greek glossary and a Greek-English index, in addition to a 16-page subject index. The notes, which are gathered in some 30 pages at the end rather than printed at the foot of the page as in earlier volumes, seem more extensive, while the new format allows for longer individual notes. Space is not squandered, and much useful material and insightful commentary can be found in these pages.\r\n\r\nIn addition to helping relate Simplicius' interpretations to the text of Aristotle, H. is also attentive to Simplicius' Neoplatonic concerns. Simplicius, for example, is clearly puzzled as to what entities in the Neoplatonic world Aristotle's concepts might apply. Initially, he interprets Aristotle's analysis of \"internal movement\" as soul moving body, where something is seen to move but we cannot point to the mover (1038, 1f.). Later, he restricts this to the soul alone, citing Phaedrus 245c8, but finally decides to use the common Neoplatonic strategy of restricting Aristotle's analysis to the sublunar world.\r\n\r\nIn fact, Simplicius is groping toward an understanding of the contribution of the argument in Book Seven to the unmoved mover of Book Eight. He points to the connection by narrowing the meaning of Aristotle's \"first moved mover\" to \"something first imparting motion which is no longer being moved itself by another\" (1047, 15). (Aristotle's first mover in Book Seven, though not moved by another, is nevertheless in motion.) At the same time, Simplicius is quite clear that Aristotle is not referring to a cosmic mover here. Thus, at 1048, 15f., he distinguishes \"the very first, unmoved cause of motion\" and the \"proximate mover,\" which he thinks Aristotle is referring to in Book Seven.\r\n\r\nH.'s notes not only clarify Simplicius' interpretation of the Aristotelian text but also aid our understanding of Simplicius' creative philosophical concerns. This translation, therefore, will be of use to those with Neoplatonic as well as Aristotelian interests. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qOElwVrkx2iCYIO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":232,"full_name":"Smith, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":847,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review, New Series","volume":"45","issue":"2","pages":"464-465"}},"sort":[1995]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1121","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1121,"authors_free":[{"id":1695,"entry_id":1121,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":419,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bauzou, Thomas","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"Bauzou","norm_person":{"id":419,"first_name":"Thomas","last_name":"Bauzou","full_name":"Bauzou, Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1137532572","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Sur les pas d'un p\u00e8lerin pa\u00efen \u00e0 travers la Syrie chr\u00e9tienne: \u00c0 propos du livre de Michel Tardieu","main_title":{"title":"Sur les pas d'un p\u00e8lerin pa\u00efen \u00e0 travers la Syrie chr\u00e9tienne: \u00c0 propos du livre de Michel Tardieu"},"abstract":"This \u00e0 propos to the book Les paysages reliques. Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius by Michel Tardieu discusses how Tardieu's book collects and comments on previously unknown fragments by Damascius and Simplicius, the last pagan intellectuals of a region that was in the process of complete Christianisation. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1994","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tBLkmMKD3Nol362","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":419,"full_name":"Bauzou, Thomas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1121,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Syria","volume":"71","issue":"1\/2","pages":"217-226"}},"sort":[1994]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"596","_score":null,"_source":{"id":596,"authors_free":[{"id":847,"entry_id":596,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":113,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","free_first_name":"Aryeh","free_last_name":"Finkelberg","norm_person":{"id":113,"first_name":"Aryeh","last_name":"Finkelberg","full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1124815007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plural Worlds in Anaximander","main_title":{"title":"Plural Worlds in Anaximander"},"abstract":"The ancients ascribed to Anaximander a belief in plural worlds, but the state of the evidence does not make it immediately clear whether these worlds are coexistent or successive. Zeller argued that they could not be coexistent, but his view was challenged by Burnet; yet Cornford, as Kirk puts it, \"demonstrated that Burnet's argument . . . rested on a false assessment of the doxographic evidence on this point, as well as on the misinterpretation of several later Presocratics.\" So far so good, but Kirk goes further and contends not only that coexis- tent worlds have been wrongly assigned to Anaximander, as Zeller and Cornford have shown, but that successive worlds are also a doxo- graphic error; a similar view is argued by Kahn. In this essay I propose to scrutinize our evidence on Anaximander's plural worlds and to exam- ine, systematically and exhaustively, Kirk's and Kahn's criticism of this evidence-both as against the doxographic testimony and on its own merits. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1994","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kNyOiUMQDhQWBYi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":113,"full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":596,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The American Journal of Philology","volume":"115","issue":"4","pages":"485-506"}},"sort":[1994]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"749","_score":null,"_source":{"id":749,"authors_free":[{"id":1114,"entry_id":749,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":113,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","free_first_name":"Aryeh","free_last_name":"Finkelberg","norm_person":{"id":113,"first_name":"Aryeh","last_name":"Finkelberg","full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1124815007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaximander's Conception of the \"Apeiron\"","main_title":{"title":"Anaximander's Conception of the \"Apeiron\""},"abstract":"Anaximander's Apeiron is perhaps the most obscure notion in Greek philosophy. Aristotle was puzzled by it, suggesting various and greatly differing interpretations of the concept. But while Aristotle's construals were, in a sense, predominantly ad hoc and exempli gratia, Theophrastus committed himself, at least in the expository sections of his Physical Opinions, to a concise presentation\u2014with attention to their authentic setting and idiom\u2014of the teachings of the earlier thinkers. Theophrastus' statement concerning the Apeiron has come down to us in the following three versions:\r\n\r\n Simpl. Phys. 24, 13 (DK 12 A 9): Anaximander... said that the arche and the element of existing things was the Apeiron... and he says that it is neither water nor any other of the so-called elements, but some other infinite nature...\r\n Diog. ii 1 (DK 12 A 1): Anaximander... said that the arche and the element is the Apeiron, not determining whether it is air or water or something else.\r\n Aet. 1 3, 3 (DK 12 A 14): Anaximander... says that the arche of existing things is the Apeiron... but he errs in that he does not say what the Apeiron is, whether it is air, or water, or earth, or some other body.\r\n\r\nThe question of whether Simplicius or Diogenes and Aetius are true to Theophrastus' genuine wording is not of purely philological interest. As Barnes notes, \"the view that Anaximander's principle was qualitatively indeterminate loses in plausibility if he did not positively distinguish it from the elements.\" Kahn adds, \"here again the words of Simplicius must closely reflect the text of Theophrastus. The parallels [in Aetius and Diogenes] prove this, even if they are not precise enough to establish the original wording.\" However, Barnes also admits that \"we cannot tell whether Simplicius or Diogenes better represents Theophrastus' judgment.\"\r\n\r\nA decisive answer, however, has already been provided by H\u00f6lscher, who assessed Simplicius' words as \"clearly a distortion; the correct phrase is in Diogenes, ob \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2,\" and this not merely because Simplicius is in a minority, but for the simple reason that \"otherwise there could have been no discussion about it [i.e., the Apeiron] at all.\" Thus, what Theophrastus actually said is that Anaximander did not determine his arche and element in respect of qualities.\r\n\r\nIt is one thing to say that Anaximander did not determine his arche qualitatively and quite another to say that he posited a qualitatively indeterminate body as the arche; concluding from the former to the latter is not an inference that logicians would approve.\r\n\r\nThat being said, it is not to imply that Anaximander provided his arche with no qualification at all\u2014he called it to Apeiron. The Greek word may mean \"boundless, infinite, countless\" or \"endless\" in the sense of \"circular\" (see LSJ, s.v.). However, the third meaning\u2014\"without outlet\"\u2014is surely irrelevant to Anaximander. Gottschalk correctly pointed out that the widely accepted idea that under to Apeiron Anaximander meant \"that which is without internal boundaries or distinctions,\" effectively \"qualitatively indeterminate,\" has no linguistic justification.\r\n\r\nIn calling his principle to Apeiron, Anaximander may have meant to specify it as spatially infinite (or, more plausibly historically, indefinitely large), temporally infinite (i.e., eternal), or most probably both; he may even have intended to denote it as spherical. However, qualitative indefiniteness was certainly not what he intended to express by this term.\r\n\r\nThe scholarly belief that Anaximander posited a qualitatively indefinite body as the principle is thus, at best, a speculative conjecture and, at worst, a confusion which has neither doxographical nor linguistic support and, moreover, strictly speaking, goes against our evidence. [introduction p. 229-231]","btype":3,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KFH07EnbKOSrtwC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":113,"full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":749,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"38","issue":"3","pages":"229-256"}},"sort":[1993]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1010","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1010,"authors_free":[{"id":1524,"entry_id":1010,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: Tardieu 1990: Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Tardieu 1990: Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius"},"abstract":"A learned book that reads like a novel. It contains fascinating new information on the late Neoplatonists. \"Paysages reliques\" refers to exceptionally rare landscapes or, rather, sites in an otherwise overwhelmingly Christianized world where pagan divinities are still present. In the first chapter, T. reconstructs the pilgrimage of Isidorus and Damascius to Bostra, and from Bostra to a site in Syria east of Gadara, where they believed the waters of Styx could be seen. These waters were still venerated by the local population in the old pagan way. Commenting on the fragments of Damascius' Life of Isidorus pertaining to this trip, T., among other things, shows in what ways the description of the numinous site was idealized and how it echoes descriptions in Homer, Plato, and others of similar entrances to the netherworld.\r\n\r\nIn the second chapter, T. offers a marvelous history of navigation on the Tigris, from Assyrian times until just before World War II, by means of the so-called k\u0101lek, a wooden construction kept afloat by inflated animal skins (e.g., sheep skins). He does so because an absolutely unique reference to this means of transport is found in Simplicius\u2019 In De Caelo 525.10\u20133 Heiberg, who, explaining a point made by Aristotle, tells us that inflated skins are capable of supporting heavy loads (... ?? ?pe?????? ?a? ??? ?at? t?? ????a? p?ta???). This is the Habur, a tributary of the Euphrates. In chapter 3, T. attempts to ferret out the implications of this statement. Several of the numerous sources of this river, mentioned by the elder Pliny and Aelianus, were believed to be sacred to the Syrian goddess and venerated by the local population; the Syrian goddess, in turn, was supposed to be the equivalent of Hera. T. also reproduces descriptions of these sites by later visitors who wrote in Arabic. In antiquity, travel on the Habur was possible by means of small k\u0101leks. T. hypothesizes (without direct evidence) that Simplicius visited these sources for religious and philosophical reasons and that, in fact, his trip was a pilgrimage comparable to that of Isidorus and Damascius one century earlier. After his visit to the sources, Simplicius could have traveled downstream by k\u0101lek himself.\r\n\r\nT. argues (pp. 130 ff.) that this journey has nothing to do with the famous story of the sojourn of the seven philosophers in Persia after the closing of the Academy by Julian. He assumes that not the whole group of seven philosophers mentioned by Agathias (Hist. II c. 30\u201331 Keydell), but only Damascius, \"m\u00e9taphysicien globe-trotter au service du paganisme,\" went to Persia in 531, was received by the king of kings, and secured the inclusion of the famous clause in the peace treaty permitting pagan philosophers to live according to their own ways. T.\u2019s argument seems to be that Agathias (our only source, however) was biased and that Simplicius would have mentioned the k\u0101leks of the Tigris if he had made the journey downriver to the Persian capital himself.\r\n\r\nThe sources of the Habur are three days by foot to the east of Harran (better known to classicists as Carrhae), an important city near the Persian frontier and perhaps the last stronghold of paganism in the Greco-Roman world. In a paper published in 1986, T. convincingly argued that the so-called Sabians of Harran, who were visited by al-Mas\u2018udi around 940 and whose main doctrine is described in a fragment of al-Kindi, were (Neo-)Platonists. He assumed that Harran was the safe haven granted to the philosophers after the treaty of 532 and that it was there, not in Athens, that Simplicius wrote his great commentaries on Aristotle. In a second paper published the following year, T. proved that of the four calendars mentioned in Simpl. In Phys. 875.19 ff. Diels, three were actually used simultaneously in Harran and only there, whereas the first listed (the Athenian) must have been observed in the Platonic school.\r\n\r\nIn chapter 4 of the present book (\"D'un commentaire \u00e0 l'autre\"), T. is able to add to the circumstantial evidence supporting the hypothesis that Simplicius lived and wrote in Harran after 532. First, at In Phys. 684.35 ff., he points out that many people crossed rivers using inflated animal skins, as indeed they did in the regions of the Habur and the Tigris (typically one skin per person). Secondly, at In Cat. 358.12 ff. Busse, his examples of compound nouns with a single meaning are Hierapolis and Agathodaimon; these are unparalleled elsewhere. T. plausibly argues (pp. 153 ff.) that the city in question is Hierapolis in Syria, two days by foot west of Harran. Agathodaimon is Hermes' divine teacher in the Corpus Hermeticum. T. points out (pp. 158 ff.) that the pagans of Harran, according to a fragment of al-Kindi, possessed Hermetic writings. Al-Sarahsi, who transmits this information, adds that they venerated Agathodaimon. Thirdly, a passage at In Phys. 641.33 ff. allows T. to argue that Simplicius refers here to a Hermetic identification of the Syrian goddess Atargatis with Isis.\r\n\r\nT.'s main argument, presented with admirable clarity, is on the whole convincing. That we are now much better informed about the ways in which Greek philosophy reached the Arabs is a major step forward. Yet one should keep in mind that nothing so far is known of a Neoplatonist school or tradition at Harran before Simplicius, and that there is a considerable gap between him and the Platonists visited by al-Mas\u2018udi several centuries later. Though continuity is plausible, evidence is lacking. Perhaps T. could have said more about Hermetism at Harran, which was presumably incorporated into Neoplatonism. M. Grignaschi has argued that what he calls a late Greek \"epistolary novel\" (5th century), containing an exchange of letters between Alexander and Aristotle, was amplified and revised by what he terms (on what appears to be thin evidence) a follower of Hermes who wrote in Arabic in the 7th\u20138th century at Harran. An investigation by a qualified Orientalist (why not T. himself?) into the relation between the traditions studied by Grignaschi and the facts unearthed by T. may produce surprising results\u2014or so one surmises. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fu8N5kakur5o7NI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1010,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne","volume":"46","issue":"4","pages":"572\u2013575"}},"sort":[1993]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"898","_score":null,"_source":{"id":898,"authors_free":[{"id":1326,"entry_id":898,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Alexandria as a Center of Greek Philosophy in Later Classical Antiquity"},"abstract":"Any discussion of Greek Alexandria may properly take its starting point \r\nfrom the work of P. M. Fraser, even if only to dissent from it. In the preface \r\nto Ptolemaic Alexandria Fraser observes that philosophy was one of the \r\n\u201citems\u201d that \u201cwere not effectively transplanted to Alexandria.\u201d1 In his \r\nchapter on philosophy, talking of the establishment of the main \r\nphilosophical schools at Athens, Fraser writes that it \u201cremained the centre of \r\nphilosophical studies down to the closing of the schools by Justinian in A.D. \r\n563.\u201d2 The first of these statements is near enough the truth, since the \r\nAlexandria of the Ptolemies was not distinguished in philosophy as ifwas in \r\nliterature or science, though even then some important things happened \r\nduring that period too. But the implication that this situation continued \r\nduring the Roman and early Byzantine periods is misleading, and by the end \r\nof the period simply false.3 The purpose of this paper is to examine some \r\naspects of the considerable contribution that Alexandria made to the \r\nphilosophical tradition that continued into the Islamic and Christian middle \r\nages and beyond, and to show that it may lay claim to have been at least \r\nequal to that of Athens itself. [Introduction, p. 307]","btype":3,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MGb8ujHWfXvghPD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":898,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Illinois Classical Studies","volume":"18","issue":"","pages":"307-325"}},"sort":[1993]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"668","_score":null,"_source":{"id":668,"authors_free":[{"id":979,"entry_id":668,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicien : les pr\u00e9faces descommentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories","main_title":{"title":"Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicien : les pr\u00e9faces descommentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories"},"abstract":"Cet article repr\u00e9sente une contribution de plus \u00e0 ma critique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des th\u00e8ses de Praechter selon lesquelles l'\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne dite \u00abd'Alexandrie\u00bb se distinguerait, non seulement par le lieu de son enseignement, de celle dite \u00abd'Ath\u00e8nes\u00bb, mais encore et surtout par ses\r\ndoctrines philosophiques et par son attitude envers T \u0153uvre d'Aristote. La comparaison entre elles des pr\u00e9faces des cinq commentaires n\u00e9oplatoniciens des Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote. dont l'un, celui de Simplicius, appartiendrait, selon Praechter, \u00e0 l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes, et ceux des quatre autres \u00e0 l'\u00e9cole d'Alexandrie, fait appara\u00eetre la concordance fondamentale de la philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne qui \u00e9tait enseign\u00e9e \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes avec celle qui \u00e9tait enseign\u00e9e \u00e0 Alexandrie: toutes deux interpr\u00e8tent la philosophie d'Aristote dans la m\u00eame perspective n\u00e9oplatonicienne et la m\u00eame volont\u00e9 d'harmoniser Platon et Aristote. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1992","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7tyvPpwgQ6rj4sJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":668,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de th\u00e9ologie et de philosophie","volume":"124","issue":"4","pages":"407\u2013425"}},"sort":[1992]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"901","_score":null,"_source":{"id":901,"authors_free":[{"id":1330,"entry_id":901,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":121,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Foulkes, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Foulkes","norm_person":{"id":121,"first_name":"Paul","last_name":"Foulkes","full_name":"Foulkes, Paul","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/127222294","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Where was Simplicius?","main_title":{"title":"Where was Simplicius?"},"abstract":"In Simplicius: sa vie, son oeuvre, sa survie (Berlin 1987, reviewed in JHS cx [1990] 244\u201345), the editor, Mme I. Hadot, in the first part of the biographical introduction, cites Agathias Hist. ii 31.4. This is usually taken to show that the Neoplatonists, who had fled to the Persian court when Justinian closed down the Academy in 529, went back to Athens after 532. That view, she holds, rests on a misreading of the text. However, she herself misconstrues kath\u2019 heautous as \"selon leur choix\": that is, on returning from exile to their own accustomed places, these men should henceforth live without fear as they might choose. To yield that version, the Greek would have to be kath\u2019 autous. The actual expression means \"amongst themselves\": they might philosophize, but not in public.\r\n\r\nThat a touch of private heterodoxy amongst the learned few is harmless if it does not stir up the ignorant many was well understood, indeed explicitly so later, in Islam and medieval Christianity.\r\n\r\nWhere, then, did the returned exiles settle? We do not know. That the Persian king sought to ensure protection for them in their previous habitat neither shows nor refutes that they went back there or to any other nameable place.\r\n\r\nMme Hadot certainly cannot well enlist M. Tardieu\u2019s inference, in the second part of the introduction, from Simplicius on the four calendars (Comm. in Arist. Graeca x 875.19\u201322). Simplicius there states that \"we <humans> posit the beginning of the year\" (h\u00eameis de h\u00eameras poioumetha arch\u00eas eniautou) to fall at four times, namely the summer solstice, as at Athens; the autumnal equinox, as in the then province of Asia; the winter solstice, as with the Romans; or the vernal equinox, as with the Arabs and Damascenes.\r\n\r\nIn context, Simplicius here contrasts beginnings that are natural (physei) and imposed (thesei). Adding the sentence before and after the one on the four types of year, the passage runs thus: \"As regards time, flow, or becoming, the natural beginning comes first. We ourselves put the beginning of the year at (1) or (2) or (3) or (4). Likewise, those who say that a month begins at full moon or new moon will be imposing this.\" The passage figures in his comments on Arist. Ph. 226b34\u2013227a10, on consecutiveness.\r\n\r\nSimplicius never says that all four types of year were in use at one place, nor does his text imply it. Of the two solstitial years, Academics would use the summer one from tradition, while the winter one is Roman imperial. The equinoctial years were used in the areas stated.\r\n\r\nIf the equinoctial and Roman calendars existed together in some place where the Neoplatonists did settle, then in that place there must have been four calendars. Clearly, though, the reverse inference is invalid: that the four calendars co-existed does not prove the presence of Neoplatonists. The Athenian calendar may have existed there for other reasons: its being there is necessary, but not sufficient, for the Neoplatonists\u2019 presence.\r\n\r\nAs to Harran (Carrhae), which Tardieu argues is where Simplicius settled, Arab sources confirm that the equinoctial calendars and the Roman one did exist there. We have no independent evidence that the Athenian one did. We have only Simplicius\u2019 statement, if he was at Harran. That, however, is precisely what must be established. To cite the four-calendar passage as proof that he was, begs the question and ignores the context.\r\n\r\nWhere Simplicius wrote his commentaries thus remains unclear, for lack of evidence. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YllEyDkwMYgJ7Wa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":121,"full_name":"Foulkes, Paul","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":901,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"112","issue":"","pages":"143"}},"sort":[1992]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"619","_score":null,"_source":{"id":619,"authors_free":[{"id":875,"entry_id":619,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":259,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mignucci, Mario","free_first_name":"Mario","free_last_name":"Mignucci","norm_person":{"id":259,"first_name":"Mignucci","last_name":"Mario","full_name":"Mignucci, Mario","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1194188885","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicio, Isnardi, la logica e il contesto","main_title":{"title":"Simplicio, Isnardi, la logica e il contesto"},"abstract":"Mi sia consentita un\u2019ultima osservazione prima di concludere. M.I.P. ritiene che non ci sia ombra di dubbio sul fatto che i dogmatici menzionati nel passo di Sesto siano gli Stoici. Nel mio lavoro ero molto pi\u00f9 cauto e devo dire che lo sono ancora, dato che l\u2019argomento terminologico addotto da M.I.P. in favore dell\u2019identificazione \u00e8 tutt\u2019altro che convincente.\r\n\r\nDalla semplice presenza di espressioni quali pros ti p\u00f4s echonta e hyparxis non si pu\u00f2 inferire che il contenuto delle proposizioni in cui compaiono sia da attribuire agli Stoici. Ci\u00f2 non tanto perch\u00e9 non \u00e8 escluso che queste espressioni si trovassero gi\u00e0 nella letteratura precedente, ma perch\u00e9 ai tempi di Sesto esse erano probabilmente entrate nella koine terminologica delle scuole e costituivano un patrimonio comune del linguaggio della filosofia.\r\n\r\nIn effetti, Sesto non esita in [a] ad usare la contrapposizione stoica mentale-esistente per esprimere la sua tesi sulla natura della dimostrazione, una tesi che nessuno Stoico avrebbe potuto condividere. La stessa definizione di relativo attribuita da Sesto ai dogmatici potrebbe essere stata una versione della definizione peripatetica pi\u00f9 o meno accettata da tutti.\r\n\r\nQuello che forse fa pensare che i dogmatici siano gli Stoici \u00e8 che l\u2019argomentazione di Sesto contro la dimostrazione di cui il passo che stiamo discutendo \u00e8 una parte sembra essere prevalentemente diretta contro questa scuola. Ma anche se riconosciamo che i dogmatici in questione sono gli Stoici, ben poco si pu\u00f2 ricavare dal testo di Sesto e non certo tutto quello che M.I.P. crede di scorgervi.\r\n\r\nChe cosa devo dire a conclusione? M.I.P. \u00e8 una seria e profonda studiosa della filosofia antica. Dai suoi libri ho imparato moltissimo e le sono sinceramente grato per quei tesori di sapere che ella vi ha profuso e dei quali io e molti altri abbiamo potuto approfittare. Come tutti gli studiosi che lavorano e si impegnano attivamente nella ricerca, ella commette talvolta errori interpretativi. Perch\u00e9 si ostina a difenderli quando sono insostenibili? [conclusion p. 750-751]","btype":3,"date":"1991","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YEvGYWS60aSUdHT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":259,"full_name":"Mignucci, Mario","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":619,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rivista di storia della filosofia","volume":"46","issue":"4","pages":"737-751"}},"sort":[1991]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"452","_score":null,"_source":{"id":452,"authors_free":[{"id":608,"entry_id":452,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":382,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Van Riet, Simone","free_first_name":"Simone","free_last_name":"Van Riet","norm_person":{"id":382,"first_name":"Simone","last_name":"Van Riet","full_name":"Van Riet, Simone","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525887","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A propos de la biographie de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"A propos de la biographie de Simplicius"},"abstract":"Known for his adherence to the Neoplatonic School of Athens, Simplicius represents the intellectual lineage that blended Plotinus' metaphysics with oriental mysteries and rites, tracing its roots back to the ancient Platonic Academy. His journey also intersects with the evolution of philosophy in Alexandria, known for its leanings towards natural studies and empirical sciences. However, unlike many of his contemporaries, Simplicius lacks a dedicated biographer, necessitating careful historical reconstruction of his life. A notable event in his life was the closure of the Neoplatonic School of Athens in 529, pushing Simplicius and others to Persia, only to face disappointment and eventual return due to a peace treaty. While his commentaries on Aristotle's treatises form the main body of his works, this study argues for a deeper recognition of Simplicius and his fellow Aristotelian commentators as distinctive thinkers in the history of philosophy, whose biographies merit thorough exploration. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1991","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8nsFoCQv5aHc85J","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":382,"full_name":"Van Riet, Simone","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":452,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue philosophique de Louvain","volume":"83","issue":"","pages":"506-514"}},"sort":[1991]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"598","_score":null,"_source":{"id":598,"authors_free":[{"id":849,"entry_id":598,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":82,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Engmann, Joyce","free_first_name":"Joyce","free_last_name":"Engmann","norm_person":{"id":82,"first_name":"Joyce","last_name":"Engmann","full_name":"Engmann, Joyce","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cosmic Justice in Anaximander ","main_title":{"title":"Cosmic Justice in Anaximander "},"abstract":"In what may be our oldest surviving fragment of Greek literary prose, Anaximander refers to the redress of injustice among parties alternately injured and injuring. Since the parties in question are impersonal entities, and the redress is a cosmic process, Simplicius, probably repeating a remark of Theophrastus, comments on Anaximander's mode of expression as \"rather poetical.\" What, in plain terms, was the meaning of the metaphor? In this paper, I wish to look again at what Vlastos has described as the most controversial text in Presocratic philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe preceding clause in Simplicius indicates that the process of redress is one of perishing or passing away, phthora: not absolute phthora, but phthora \"into\" something. Two main views have been taken of this process. It has often been thought that that into which perishing took place was the infinite, and that that which perished was what Simplicius referred to as ta onta, existing things\u2014in effect, the world, or a world (the difference is immaterial for present purposes). Thus, the, or a, world perished as a totality into the infinite.\r\n\r\nThe view which prevails today is that both that into which perishing takes place and that which perishes are the opposites or elements, which Simplicius refers to as ta stoicheia. I believe there are difficulties in this view which have not been fully recognised.\r\n\r\nIn the reports of Anaximander in our sources, there are several pointers to a third possibility, which is, in a sense, an amalgam of the two just mentioned: that into which perishing takes place is the infinite, as on the first view, while, as on the second view, the process of perishing is not a sudden but an ongoing process, and, again, that which perishes is the opposites or elements. The hypothesis of ongoing material interaction between the world and the infinite at least seems to merit more consideration than it has received.\r\n\r\nIt has been mooted in one line and rejected in two by Kirk; dismissed in a short footnote by Vlastos; and only taken seriously by Heidel, who, however, does not apply it to the interpretation of the fragment. I believe that it supplies the key to the understanding of the fragment, and shall argue that it provides a way of reconciling Simplicius' report on Anaximander with two supplementary categories of evidence, the value of which is often discounted: Simplicius' isolated statements about Anaximander elsewhere, and the parallel reports of Aetius and pseudo-Plutarch.\r\n\r\nI shall conclude by suggesting that equality did not play the role in Anaximander's conception of justice that is commonly thought, and that for him the natural world mirrored an aristocratic rather than a democratic society. [introduction p. 1-2]","btype":3,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4jIf0maBjgUseow","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":82,"full_name":"Engmann, Joyce","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":598,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"36","issue":"1","pages":"1-25"}},"sort":[1991]}